Ikechukwu Nvene V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of Hon. Justice D. V. Agishi of the Federal High Court sitting in Enugu delivered on 4/2/2013 wherein His Lordship convicted the Appellant of dealing without lawful authority in Indian hemp and sentenced him to six years imprisonment. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

By a charge dated 20/12/2012, the appellant was arraigned before the trial Court for the offence of dealing without lawful authority in Indian Hemp. The appellant pleaded guilty to the one-count charge. To prove its case the prosecution called one witness (P.W.1) and tendered five exhibits.

The gist of the case is that on the 22nd of November, 2012, P.W.1 led a team of NDLEA Officers to Obiagu village of Ozalla Nkanu East Local Government Area of Enugu State where a search was conducted in the appellant’s shop and some wraps of a substance which was later tested and found to be Cannabis Sativa were recovered. At the trial, P.W.1 tendered five exhibits [Exh 1-5] to prove its case. At the close of trial, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant for dealing

1

without lawful authority in Indian Hemp and sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment accordingly.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant by a Notice of Appeal filed on 2/5/2013 containing 2 grounds of appeal has brought this appeal. Records were transmitted on 10/7/2013. Appellant’s brief was filed on 23/09/2014, deemed filed on 18/3/2015. Reply brief was filed on 11/2/2016. Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on 2/10/2014 and deemed filed on 18/3/2015. Respondent’s brief was filed on 29/4/2075 and deemed filed on 26/1/2016.

In the appellant’s brief settled by C.C. Ukor and the Respondent’s brief settled by Obeta P. Afum, the two issues identified by both parties for determination are as follows:

1. Whether there was a valid arraignment of the appellant for the offence he was alleged to have committed and whether he was properly convicted and sentenced by the Lower Court.
2. Whether by the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was given opportunity to secure the services of a legal practitioner to assist him in the case against him by the prosecution before conviction and sentence.

?After careful

2

perusal of both briefs, the arguments of counsel and the issues raised by both parties, I have found that the technical points before us are:

1. Whether the Learned trial judge conducted the arraignment of the appellant properly in accordance with the rules of procedure.
2. Whether absence of legal representation for the appellant in this case during arraignment and trial is fatal to the case of the respondent.

Learned Appellant’s counsel submitted that arraignment is an initial step where an accused is called to take his plea before a Court after there has been an indictment. Counsel argued that this must be in strict compliance with the four mandatory provisions for arraignment in Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act where it states that where a person is to be tried upon a charge or information, he should be placed before the Court unfettered unless the Court sees it fit to do otherwise and the charge or information for which he is before the Court must be read and explained to him by the registrar to the satisfaction of the Court only then can the person be called to take his plea instantly. Counsel submitted further that the

3

mandatory requirements must co-exist and its compliance must be reflected in the records of the Court He argued that the trial Court has not included anything in its records to show that Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act was duly complied with. Counsel cited Godwin Josiah v The State (1985) SC 406 at 418.