Yahaya Farouk Chedi & Anor. V. Attorney General of the Federation (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

At the Federal High Court holden at Abuja (the lower Court), the Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation preferred the following charges against the appellants:-

“COUNT 1

That you Yahaya Faruk Chedi ‘m’ 47 years old, Abubakar Rabo Abdulkareem ‘m’ 33 years old, both of No.37, Chedi Quarters, Kano, Kano State between 2003 and 2006 in Kano within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with intent to subvert or promote the subversion of the Government or of its officials did conspire among yourselves to commit felony to wit:

managing, assisting in the management and membership of an unlawful society known and called HISBAH BOARD ORGANISATION and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Act, Chapter 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

COUNT 2

That you Yahaya Faruk Chedi ‘m’, 47 years old, Abubakar Raba Abdulkareem ‘m’ 33 years old both of No.37, Chedi Quarters, Kano, Kano State between 2003 and 2006 in Kano, Kano State within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court are members of an unlawful society called HISBAH BOARD ORGANISATION and you thereby committed a felony contrary to and punishable under Section 64 of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

COUNT 3

That you Yahaya Faruk Chedi ‘m’, 47 years old, Abubakar Rabo Abdulkareem ‘m’ 33 years old both of No.37, Chedi Quarters, Kano, Kano State between 2003 and 2006 in Kano, Kano State within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court managed and assisted in the management of an unlawful society of more than ten persons known and called HISBAH BOARD ORGANISATION contrary to section 62(2)(1) and punishable under section 63 of the Criminal Code Act, Chapter 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.”

Meanwhile, the appellants/accused persons/applicants filed a Motion on Notice for an order of the lower court admitting them to bail pending the hearing and determination of the criminal case against them.

Having considered the affidavit evidence placed before him and the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned trial Judge refused the application for bail. That was on the 17/03/06. On the 1st day of April, the appellants, through their counsel, Yusuf O. Ali Esq, SAN, filed Notice and Grounds of Appeal in respect of the lower court’s decision.

In response to the affidavit of urgency filed by learned SAN for the appellant, this court heard the application filed by the appellants for departure from the Rules to deem bundle of papers compiled to form the record of appeal and for abridgment of time within which to file and exchange briefs of argument by the respective parties. These reliefs were granted on 11/04/06 to wit: the appellants were granted 24 hours to file and serve their brief of argument and the respondent was granted 7 days after service of appellants brief on it, within which to file its brief of argument. The appellants compiled and filed their brief within time. The respondent however, had to ask for extension of time to file its brief of argument. This court extended the time by one hour within which to file the said respondents brief. This is because the respondent did not come up with a formal application for the extension of time sought but on the very day the appeal was listed for hearing. As the appellants accepted service and indicated that they intended not to file any reply brief, this court went ahead and heard the appeal.

The brief filed by the appellants formulated single issue for determination which reads:-

“Whether the ‘learned trial Judge was right and exercise (sic) his discretion properly when he failed to admit the appellants to bail on the unproved grounds that they will impede police investigations and will continue with their unlawful activities.”