Rev. Fr. Silas C. Nweke V. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

 This is an appeal from the ruling of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division delivered in suit No. FHC/AWK/75C/2010 on 11th November, 2011. The appellant a Reverend Father was arraigned with another Reverend Father, Rev. Dr. Obiorah before the Federal High Court on a 13 count charge of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretence with intent to defraud various persons named in the charge and defrauding those persons by falsely representing themselves as distributors of Ibeto and Dangote Cement presenting the Holy Family Group of Companies which they knew to be false and obtaining various sums of money from those persons. They were charged under Section 1 (1) (b) and (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. The charges were read to the appellant and his co-accused but they refused to enter a plea. The case was adjourned for hearing but before the adjourned date, the appellant and his co accused filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the following grounds:
1. ?The respondent has no competence

1

and authority to institute the proceedings;
2. The arrests and detentions of the applicants upon which this proceeding is predicted is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful;
3. This charge is brought in bad faith and is a malicious criminalization of the applicants in order for the respondent?s EFCC to collect private debts from the applicants in favour of the complainants;
4. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter which is malicious conversion of a private debt collection exercise into criminal offences;
5. The arrests, detentions, undertakings and bail bonds and arraignment notices founding this proceedings, the instant charge and entire proceedings, were commenced and continued in contempt of the orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction, in suit No. A/MISC.155/2008, suit No. A/MISC.53/2009 and suit No. FHC/AWK/157/2009;
6. The present proceedings, including the charge filed herein, constitutes an abuse of Court process;
7. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the person of the applicants.
8. The respondent has no probable or reasonable cause to bring this charge against any of the

2

applicants.
9. The entire proceedings being instituted herein are incompetent.
10. The institution and continuation of the proceedings are unconstitutional, null and void.?

Written addresses were filed and exchanged. The Court found that the objection had no merit and dismissed the objection. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant herein has appealed to this Court on 12 grounds of appeal by an amended notice of appeal filed on 28/2/13. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
GROUND ONE (1) – ERROR IN LAW:
?The learned trial judge erred in law by assuming jurisdiction to try the offences in this charge when the said offences are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
GROUND TWO (2) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in proceeding to enter ruling/decision against the appellant on November 11, 2011 when the appellant was not notified of the proceedings culminating into the said ruling/decision and when no hearing notice was issued and/or served on the appellant and thereby denied the appellant his right to a fair hearing.
GROUND THREE (3) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The

3

learned trial Judge erred in law in allowing the respondent?s counsel to move the appellant?s own preliminary objection challenging the charge against the appellant, instead of permitting the appellant to move and argue his preliminary objection by himself or through his counsel, and thereby denied the appellant his right to a fair hearing.
GROUND FOUR (4) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the charge against the appellant was competent when the said charge is ultra vires the powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) which was only authorized to prosecute ?economic and financial crimes? as defined by Sections 1 (2) (c) and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment, etc.) Act, 2004, as amended.
GROUND FIVE (5) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing or refusing to dismiss this Charge No. FHC/AWK/75C/2010 as an abuse of Court process and a violation of the appellant?s constitutional rights, when the said charge was instituted on 07/12/2010 by the respondent (through Economic and Financial Crimes

4

Commission (EFCC)) against the appellant during the pendency of Charge No. MAW/1C/2009, Commissioner of Police v. Rev. Fr. Silas Nweke, instituted on 06/01/2009 by the same respondent (through the Commissioner of Police) against the same appellant on the same subject matter and concerning the same incident.
GROUND SIX (6) ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing or refusing to dismiss Charge No. FHC/AWK/75C/2010 as an abuse of Court process and contemptuous of the Court, when the said charge was instituted in violation of the order of the Court entered on 10/06/2009 in suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/157/2009 staying all ?relations between the parties pending the hearing of the motion on notice? and was instituted in contempt of various pending fundamental rights proceedings against the respondent?s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
GROUND SEVEN (7) ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing or refusing to quash the charge against the appellant which was filed for a vindictive purpose and in violation of the appellant?s constitutional right to be represented by a legal

5

practitioner of his choice.
GROUND EIGHT (8) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing or refusing to quash the charge against the appellant when there is no showing of a prima facie case to be tried against the appellant.
GROUND NINE (9) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing to or refusing to dismiss Charge No. FHC/AWK/CS/75C/2010 which was based on illegal arrests and detentions of the appellants, which arrests and detentions were done in violation of the orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction and the appellant?s Fundamental Right to personal liberty.
GROUND TEN (10) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing or refusing to dismiss this charge as incompetent as the charge was instituted by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in order to force the appellant to pay some personal debts he allegedly owed to some of the complainants or petitioners.
GROUND ELEVEN (11) ? ERROR IN LAW:
The learned trial Judge erred in law by refusing to quash the charge against the appellant when the said charge was filed in

6