Yahaya Farouk Chedi & Anor V. Attorney-general of the Federation (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OYEBISI F. OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

In the Federal High Court holden at Abuja, the Appellants were charged on a three-count information as follows:

”COUNT 1

That you Yahaya Faruk Chedi ‘m’ 47years 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 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 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. ”

The facts of this case briefly are that, after the above stated criminal charges had been preferred against the Appellants, trial commenced on 4/4/06. The Respondent had taken four out of five witnesses listed to be called by it. On 25/4/06, the Respondent in the course of the trial filed a motion for stay of proceedings which was opposed by the Appellants. This Court granted the Appellants bail on a 9/5/06, the Appellants having been first refused by the trial court. On 23/5/06 the date the ruling on the motion for stay of proceedings was to be delivered, the learned trial Judge observed that the processes of the Supreme Court in suit No. SC/26/2006 referred to in the Respondent’s application were not supplied by the Respondent. The learned trial Judge therefore called for the production of the said processes for his consideration and counsel for both parties addressed the trial court on the relevance of the said processes to the application for stay of proceedings. Consequently, the learned trial Judge delivered his ruling on 27/6/06 granting the application for and ordered a stay of the criminal proceedings pending before him.

The Appellants dissatisfied with the ruling filed this appeal. On 28th day of June, 2006, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing three grounds of appeal. Both sides filed and exchanged briefs of argument as provided for by the relevant rules of this Court.

The briefs were respectively adopted by learned counsel for both parties at the hearing of the appeal on 15/01/2007.

Learned counsel for the Appellants, Yusuf O. Ali Esq. Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the Court to allow the appeal and order the learned trial Judge to go on with the hearing of the case against the Appellants before that court. He also submitted that the case of Ajomale Vs. Yaduat Supra, relied upon by the Respondent not apposite is irrelevant to the case under consideration. He observed that the special consideration is that the liberty of the Appellants are involved.

Replying, learned counsel for the Respondent Mrs. G. E. Odegbaro submitted that there is a pending case at the Supreme Court, and the decision thereof will affect the outcome of the case against the Appellants in the trial Court. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety and uphold the ruling of the trial court.

In the Appellants’ brief, one sole issue was submitted as covering the three grounds of and for determination in the appeal. The sole issue is hereby reproduced verbatim as follows: