Uwem Essien Antia V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A. 

 This is an Appeal against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division delivered on 18th day of November 2015 wherein the Appellants application for bail was refused and dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling the Appellant appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated and filed 1st December 2015 (pages 318-322) of the Record of Appeal). The Notice of Appeal contained five grounds and the grounds shone of their particulars are set out hereunder:-
GROUND 1
3.1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused to grant the Appellant bail pending trial contrary to Sections 35(1) and 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
GROUND 2
3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the alledged offences with which the Appellant is being charged is of serious nature.
GROUND 3
3.3. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“Strangely, the applicant did not deny the existence of a syndicate group and that Regan Akaiso did

1

not belong to any such group. The Applicant in paragraphs 12 (i)-(iii) of his 14 paragraph. Further Affidavit deposed to on 18th August, 2015 acknowledged the existence of Regan Akaiso and that he has filed an action against the Respondent in suit No. FHC/L/CS/856/2015 at the Federal High Court…. This is an admission against the interest of the Applicant.”
GROUND 4
3.4. The learned Trial Judge erred in law when he refused the Appellant bail on the ground that the Appellant may not come back to take his trial if he is granted bail.
GROUND 5
3.5. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Appellant did not challenge or deny the facts stated by the Respondent that the Appellant was being investigated in respect of other offences by the Nigeria Police Zone 2 Headquarters, Lagos.

From the grounds of Appeal the Appellant distilled the following.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to grant the Appellant bail pending trial on the ground that the alleged offences with which the Appellant is being charged is of serious nature contrary to Sections 35(1) and

2

36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) Grounds 1 and 2.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant is a member of a criminal syndicate and that the Appellant would prejudice ongoing investigation by the Respondent – Ground 3.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to grant the Appellant bail on the ground that the Appellant may not come back to take his trial if granted bail. Ground 4
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant did not challenge or deny the facts stated by the Respondent that the Appellant was being investigated in respect of other offences by the Nigeria police Zone 2 Headquarters, Lagos – Ground 5.

The Respondent did not file any brief of argument.

ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUES.
In arguing issue 1 learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the law is trite that bail pending trial is a constitutional right of the Appellant and that the onus is on the Respondent to prove that the facts relied on by the Appellant did not warrant the granting of his bail application. It is further

3

argued by learned counsel for the Appellant that the presumption of innocence of the Appellant until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt guaranteed by Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), inures to the Appellant. Learned counsel relied on the following cases, IKHAZUAGBE v. COP (2004) 7 NWLR (pt 872) 346 at 360. LASAKI V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR 4750 (CA).

Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that since the Appellant is not yet pronounced guilty by the Court he ought to have been admitted to bail by the trial Court.

On issue 2 learned counsel for the Appellant repeats his argument under issue that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the facts relied upon by the Appellant do not warrant the grant of bail.