Tanko Mohammed Rajab & Anor. V. The State (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Niger State High Court sitting in Minna presided over by justice Christopher I. Auta, delivered on the 28th April, 2009 dismissing an application for bail by the Appellants.

On the 30th March, 2009, the Appellants were arraigned before Chief Magistrate Court 1, Minna on a First Information Report (FIR) of Criminal Conspiracy, forgery, injurious falsehood, false information with the intent to mislead public servant by obtaining, circulating official classified documents contrary to Sections 97, 364, 393, 140 and Section 7(1) of the Penal Code and the Official Secrets Law of Niger State respectively. Their application for bail before the Chief Magistrate Court was refused and they were ordered to be remanded in prison custody. The First Information Report No: MN/CR/47/2009 dated 30th March, 2009 states as follows:-

“Criminal Conspiracy Forgery, Injurious Falsehood, False Information with the intent to mislead Public servant by obtaining, circulating official classified documents contrary to Sections 97, 364, 393, Section 7(1) of the Penal Code and the Official Secrets Law of Niger State respectively. Their application for bail before the Chief Magistrate Court was refused and they were ordered to be remanded in prison custody.The First Information Report No: MN/CR/47/2009 dated 30th March, 2009 states as follows:-

“Criminal Conspiracy, Forgery, Injurious Falsehood, False Information with intent to mislead, public servant, obtaining, circulating official classified Document contrary to Sections 97, 364, 393, Section 7(1) CAP 90 of the Official Secrets Law of Niger State and 140 of the Penal Code. That you Tanko Mohammed Rajab and Alhaji Dattijo Aliyu all (m) of Minna town conspired amongst yourselves to present a forged document before the Honourable Speaker of Niger State of Assembly with the intent to mislead him and members of the House. You also obtained classified document and circulated same to members of the Public.”

The other First Information Report marked as MN/CR/48/2009 made, allegations against the 1st Appellant alone and it states as follows:-

“Personating a Public Servant possession of forged record and false personation contrary to Section 132, 368 and 179 of the Penal Code Law. You Tanko Mohammed Rajab falsely represented yourself as an Engineer and a member fellow of Nigeria Engineers and went about to circulate the document to this effect in order to mislead members of the Public you thereby committed the above offences.”

By a motion on notice dated 7th April, 2009, the Appellants applied to the High Court, Minna praying for the following order(s);

1. An order of this Honourable Court admitting the accused persons to bail pending the determination of this case,
2. And for such further orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The application was supported by five (5) paragraph affidavit and a further and better affidavit of ten (10) paragraphs. The Respondent opposed the application and filed a counter affidavit of 21 paragraphs and further and better counter affidavit of seven (7) paragraphs.

In a considered Ruling delivered on the 28th April, 2009, the learned trial Judge dismissed their application for bail and remanded them in prison custody. Dissatisfied with the said Ruling, the Appellants have now appealed to this court by a Notice of Appeal dated 6th May, 2009 and filed on the same day upon three grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are hereby reproduced:-

i. The learned trial Judge erred in law and failed to follow the established judicial principles in his consideration of the application for bail by the Appellants and refusing same.

ii. The learned trial Judge erred in law and exercised his discretion judiciously thereby wrongly refused the application on bare allegations by the State which were unsupported by any evidence before him.

iii. The learned trial Judge erred in law in refusing the application for bail by the Applicants/Appellants on the ground that the supporting affidavit had been controverted by the Respondent when he elected to believe without any attempt to resolve the conflicting averments or stating the grounds for believing same and disbelieving the Appellants.

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of arguments. In the Appellants’ brief settled by Aminu Sadauki, Esq., three issues are distilled for the determination of the appeal to wit:-