Federal Republic Of Nigeria v. Charles Akaeze (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The present appeal is consequent upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, delivered on March 19, 2018 in appeal No. CA/L/727CA/2017.

By the said judgment, the court below, coram: Sankey, Otisi and Ekanem, JJCA, allowed the respondent’s appeal, set aside the ruling of the trial Federal High Court and remitted the case to the Chief Judge, Federal High Court for hearing and determination by a different Judge.

Background facts

The respondent and two other persons were arraigned before the trial Federal High Court upon a two count charge of conspiracy and failure to declare the sum of one hundred and two thousand and eighty five United State of America Dollars ($102,885) to the officers and men of the Nigeria Customs Service at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, contrary to sections 2(3) 8(5) and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) by Act No. 1 of 2012.

The case progressed to trial. On May 20, 2016, in the course of the trial, the prosecution sought to tender the extra- judicial statements of the respondent through the prosecution witness.

However, the defence counsel vehemently objected, on the ground that the purported extra-judicial statement was confessional statement made involuntarily and without complying with sections 15(4) and 17(2) of ACJA, 2015 (supra). Thus, the trial court ordered for a trial-within-trial. On May 15, 2017, the trial court delivered its ruling regarding the trial-within-trial proceedings to the conclusive effect:

I do not find any evidence of any torture, force, or rather coercion as alleged by the defendants herein. The first day the 1st defendant was brought to the commission’s office was the first day he wrote his statement.

If there is any detention for more than 3 weeks thereafter, I believe the defendant has the right to file a fundamental rights action for the detention beyond the one or two days period allowed by law.

But in the mean time, these documents are relevant, voluntarily made in line with the law. They are accordingly admitted and marked as exhibits. All parties have a right of appeal.

Hon. Justice A.M. ANKA.

JUDGE

15/5/2017.

Having been utterly dissatisfied with the ruling in question, the respondent appealed to the court below. That appeal was indeed heard and judgment delivered by the court below on the said 19/03/2018, to the conclusive effect: