Obasi V. State (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C. 

The Appellant was arraigned before the Anambra State High Court, Eguata-Ekwulobia on 30/6/1997 on a 6-count charge of malicious damage, rioting, stealing and riotous demolition of property. According to the Appellant, that after the commencement of the trial by Ezeari J, he was transferred out of the judicial division in 1999, which caused the Respondent to become lackadaisical towards prosecuting the matter thereby causing the Appellant to witness incessant transfer of the Judges assigned to hear the matter which took over 20 years without the matter being properly commenced. Consequently, the Appellant with others applied vide a motion dated 8/3/2016 for an order quashing/dismissing all the charges against him/them and discharging him/them. The Respondent’s case however is that since the arraignment of the Appellant on 14/6/1999, the Appellant and his co-accused persons used all kinds of techniques including consistent absences from the criminal proceedings to frustrate the speedy trial and determination of the 6-count charge against them. The Respondent emphasized that the Appellant failed to

1

appear for trial in over 40 occasions and requested for adjournments for over 15 times. In fact, that the trial Court at some occasion issued bench warrant against one or more of the accused persons, who during the pendency of the bench warrant committed same offences against the complainants on 18/5/2013.

​The Ruling of the trial Court disfavoured the Appellant, who appealed to the lower Court. Having considered the appeal, the lower Court also dismissed the appeal, hence this current appeal. The Respondent’s lone issue aptly fits for the consideration of this appeal than the rather windy and prolific issues formulated by the Appellant.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court below was right in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal because his right to fair hearing was not breached, particularly when the delay in the trial of the Appellant was substantially caused by the Appellant himself and circumstances beyond the control of the prosecution.

​It is the submission of the learned Counsel to the Appellant that his constitutional right of fair hearing within a reasonable time has been breached, the trial of the Appellant having lingered or being stalled for

2

about 18 years. He chronicled 4 instances attributing the delays to the actions/inactions of the Respondent. He admitted that the delay, if any, from the Appellant was minor and inconsequential. Thus, he submitted that speedy trial of the Appellant was breached and denied. He relied on DASUKI V. FRN & ORS (2018) LPELR-43897(SC). He submitted that the remedy for the breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing and speedy trial was a dismissal of the charge against him which the lower Court refused. He therefore urged for the resolution of this issue in his favour.

It is concurred by the learned counsel to the Respondent that speedy trial in criminal proceedings is an aspect of the right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution, 1999 (as amended). However, that there is no time limit within which a criminal trial ought to be concluded, especially when the accused person is on bail. Thus, reasonable time is relative as decided in NNAJIOFOR & ORS V. UKONU & ORS (1986) 2 NSCC (VOL. 17) 1067. He submitted that the Appellant and or his co-accused persons failed to appear for trial in over 40 occasions and requested for

3

adjournments for over 15 times. Thus, the delay was substantially caused by the Appellant and his co-accused persons. Furthermore, that it is trite that a person cannot claim breach of his right to fair hearing where he has willfully absented himself from the said trial. He cited in reliance A.G. RIVERS STATE V. UDE (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1008) 436, 456-457. He prayed that this issue be resolved in its favour.

This is apparently a case with chequered history and seemingly unending determination for over 20 years, yet still in the pipeline. “Even though it is the desire of all involved in the administration of justice to uphold the principle which States that justice delayed is justice denied, it is equally unacceptable to encourage or do injustice in an attempt at speedy dispensation of justice. Justice may be slow sometimes but it will surely arrive at its destination.” See per ONNOGHEN, JSC in OGLI OKO MEMORIAL FARMS LTD & ANOR V. NACB LTD & ANOR (2008) LPELR-3O6 (SC). “It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. The reverse is equally disturbing. Justice rushed is a travesty of justice and a threat to the fabric that binds civilized society