Musa Umar V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appeal is against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja delivered on the 7th day of March 2014 in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/13/2014.

The facts of the case are that the Appellant was charged with two others for breach of several provisions of the Terrorism (prevention) Amendment Act 2013, as reflected at pages 1- 3 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellant as applicant at the trial court applied to be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of the charge(s) against him pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and section 118(2) of the criminal procedure Act and under the inherent Jurisdiction of the Court. The application is at pages 59 – 70 of the Record. The trial Judge in his considered Ruling refused the application.

The refusal is what gave rise to this Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Ms) Mase Acho adopted the Appellant’s brief of argument dated and filed on 22/04/2014 and the Appellant’s Reply brief dated and filed on 02/07/2014. She urged the Court to allow the Appeal.

The 1st Respondent’s Counsel Mrs. N. B. Jones – Nebo, Chief State counsel of the Federal Ministry of Justice adopted the 1st Respondent’s brief dated and filed on 07/07/2014 and urged the court to affirm the Ruling of the trial Court and dismiss the Appeal.

The Appellant’s counsel in her brief of argument identified one issue for determination as follow:

ISSUE ONE

“Whether the learned trial Court was right to rely on recent event of the last four weeks to determine the Appellant’s Application for bail rather than the material placed before it?”.

Learned counsel for the Appellant Ms Mase Acho submitted on this sole issue that a Judge is not required to consider extraneous matters when determining an application for bail but to rely on materials placed before it. She argued that by section 36(5) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.

The Court was referred to the case of Amoshima Vs State (2011) LPELR on the interpretation by the Supreme Court that the use of the word “shall” is intended to have a mandatory effect. She submitted that the grant or refusal of bail application is entirely on the discretion of the Judge, but the discretion must be exercised Judicially and Judiciously.

Learned counsel for the Appellant referred to pages 91 – 104 of the Record where the trial court after evaluation in refusing the application for bail took cognizance of incidences of violences and killings on innocent citizens of the nation, which she said does not fall within the consideration expected of the learned trial Judge. She referred to Adamu Suleiman and other C. O. P. (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt 1089) 298 SC. It is her submission that the law is against sentiments in Judgments because it can easily lead to bias. On the exercise of discretion she referred to the cased of Omodara Vs State (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 80 at 89 paragraphs E – G, and Ahmed Vs C .O. P (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt 1304) 104 at 130- 131 paragraphs D-E

Counsel further submitted that the trial Court in the exercise of his discretion was influenced by extraneous considerations and materials not placed before the Court when he relied on the happenings in Borno and Yobe State in the North Eastern part of the Country. She referred to pages 109 – 110 of the Record and also page 112 of the trial Court’s conclusion in refusing the Appellant bail. The Court was referred to the case of Summerset Vs Stewaft 1 Lofft 1, 1, 98 Eng. Rep. 499 (KB. 1772).