Hanafi Mohammed V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A,

There are two appeals in respect of two applications argued at the same sitting but differently. The first application would be determined before the second appeal on the other application would be taken on. Pursuant to an application dated 4th April 2008, the 1st Respondent sought and obtained leave of the Honourable Justice Salisu Garba sitting at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to initiate criminal proceedings against the Appellant (charged as the 5th Accused) and the 2nd to 12th Respondents.

The Appellant and the 2nd to 12th Respondents were arraigned on 1st April, 2008 on a fifty four (54) count charge later amended to fifty six (56) counts where to all the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The charges against the Appellant are contained in counts 1- 38, 43 and 55 of the 1st Respondents information and relate to offences of:

1. Conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by public servant – counts 1, 14 and 55.
2. Criminal Breach of Trust as a public servant – counts 2 – 13.
3. Forgery – Counts 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 and 37.
4. Fraud – counts 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38.
5. Dishonestly receiving proceeds of criminal breach of trust – counts 43.

By a motion dated the 14th day of April, 2008 and filed the same day, the Appellant sought to quash all the counts for which he was charged.

The application to quash was premised on three (3) grounds, to wit:

(a) The offences alleged against the Appellant were not disclosed by the statements of witnesses listed by the prosecution which formed the bulk of the proof of evidence.

(b) No offence committed by the Appellant was disclosed by the proof of evidence before the trial court and when the charges are compared and contrasted with the proof of evidence and the ingredients of the alleged offences, the result is that the information was an abuse of Court process.

(c) The proof of evidence and the statement of witnesses do not disclose any prima facie case against the Appellant requiring him to stand trial before the trial court or any other court of law on any of the charges.

Beside the Appellant, all the other Accused/Respondents (except the 4th Respondent) also filed an application to quash the charge. The 2nd Respondents’ application was dated 11/04/08; the 6th, 8th and 9th Respondents by a joint motion dated 14/05/08; the 7th Respondent by a motion dated 9/05/08 and the 12th Respondent by a motion dated 28/05/08. All the seven (7) applications (including that of the Appellant) were argued separately but in his ruling the trial Judge considered them together and in his consolidated ruling delivered on 31st July 2008 he dismissed all the applications.

Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s ruling on his application to quash the Charge, the Appellant has appealed to this Court for a reversal of the ruling on four (4) grounds as contained in his Notice of appeal filed on the 4th August, 2008.

On the 29/9/09 the learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Olorundare SAN adopted the Appellant’s Brief filed on the 13/3/09 and the Reply Brief of the 18/6/09. He urged the Court to grant the prayer in the appeal.

Mr. Pinheiro for the 1st Respondent adopted their Brief filed on 14/5/09 and deemed filed on 15/6/09. He urged this court to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Aremu for the 12th Respondent did not file any Brief and said they shall abide whatever the judgment.

Mr. Ologunorisa for the 7th, 9th, and 11th Respondents said they do not oppose the appeal and so had not filed any Brief.