Emma Amanchukwu V. The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NIKI TOBI, J.S.C

The appellant was arraigned before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal, Kano on a charge of importing 600 grammes of heroin by concealing same in his body without lawful authority contrary to section 10 (a) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree No.48 of 1989.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. In his plea of leniency, the appellant said:

“It was poverty that made me to commit the offence. My shop was burnt down. I am pleading for leniency.”

In answer to a question by the Tribunal whether he wanted the government chemist who issued the forensic expert Report to be called, appellant answered in the negative as follows:

“I accept the report. I do not want him to be called”

The Tribunal sentenced him to imprisonment for 15 years. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the appeal. He has come to this court. Briefs were filed and exchanged. Appellant formulated the following issue for determination:

“Whether learned Justices of the Court of Appeal gave adequate consideration to the appellants right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 33 (b) and (c) of the 1979 Constitution before affirming his conviction and sentence.”

The respondent formulated the following issue for determination:

“Whether the lower court was right in affirming the conviction of the appellant”

I do not think I will deal with any of the issues above. The only issue I will consider here is whether an appeal is still available to the appellant having served the sentence of 15 years imprisonment. See page 58 of the Record. Both counsel agree that the appellant has served out his term of imprisonment. Why then this appeal, I ask. It is the submission of his counsel that the appeal is to retrieve his good name. This is quite a unique one. The appeal is essentially academic and courts of law do not deal with academic matters. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. As the appellant has served out his term of imprisonment, I will not sentence him to another term, as that will be against the principle of double jeopardy.

G. A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C: The appellant had been arraigned before the Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal, Kano on an offence of importation of 600 grams of heroin contrary to Section 10(a) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Decree No. 48 of 1989. There is no doubt that it is a very serious offence and punishable with life imprisonment. When he was first brought before the tribunal on 4-10-90, the tribunal in recognition of the serious nature of the offence remarked:

“The accused has a right to engage counsel of his choice.”

The appellant reacted by saying: