Federal Republic Of Nigeria V. Mohammed Abubakar (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

On the 6th day of May 2008, the Federal High Court sitting at lbadan, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, convicted the respondent and one Uchenna Iwuafor under Section 11 (d) of the NDLEA Act Cap 130 Laws of the Federation 2004. The two were sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment each.

On finding respondent’s appeal against the trial Court’s judgment meritorious, the lbadan Division of the Court of Appeal, the lower Court, allowed same and set aside his conviction and sentence.

Dissatisfied with the lower Court’s decision delivered on the 5th of May 2015, the respondent thereat has appealed to this Court on a notice filed on 15th May 2015 containing three grounds.

In the appellant’s amended brief of argument settled by Segun Ololade Esq deemed filed on November 2018, adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal, two issues have been distilled as basis for the determination of the appeal thus:

“(I) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the arraignment of the Respondent fell far below the position of the law.

1

(II) Whether in view of the plea of guilty by the Respondent, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the proof of a crime in a trial is beyond reasonable doubt.” (Underlining supplied for emphasis).

Abioye A. Oloyode-Asanike Esq settled the respondent’s brief wherein two issues for the determination of the appeal have been distilled, as follows: –

“(I) Whether the learned trial judge fulfilled the condition precedent to plea taking.

(II) Whether in view of the plea of guilty by the Respondent the learned trial judge was right in convicting and sentencing the respondent to fifteen years imprisonment with hard labour.”

A very feeble objection appears to have been raised at pages 3 – 4 of the respondent’s brief on the competence of the issues distilled by the appellant and by extension the entire appeal. It is argued that the issues being at variance with the grounds of appeal, the appellant is deemed to have abandoned its appeal. Relying on the decisions inUnity Bank Plc v. Edward Bouari (2008) 33 NSCQRO 296 at 325 – 325, Fasoro Anor v. Beyioku & Ors (1988) 2 NWLR

2

(Pt 76) 263 at 270 – 271, learned respondents counsel urges that the incompetent appeal be struck out. As feeble and unorthodox as the objection is, being a challenge to the competence of the appeal, it has to be determined first.