Zanna Musa Hindi V. The State (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

COKER, J.S.C.

The appellant was at the Magistrate’s Court, Maiduguri, convicted by the Chief Magistrate of an offence under Section 158 of the Penal Code. On his arraignment before the magistrate, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as F.I.R.) pursuant to the provisions of Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code was placed before the court. The F.I.R. states as follows:-

“Nature of Information Fabricating false Evidence on 15/3/73 Alhaji Zanna Musa Hindi of Bulabulin Ward Maiduguri fabricates false evidence before Yerwa Civil Court for the purpose of claiming 2 houses and one thousand naira (N1,000) said to belong to late Alhaji Zanna Laisu the late Waziri of Bornu by giving the sum of N40 to Alhaji Umar Shettima in order to bribe the members of the late Zanna Laisu’s family to come and give false evidence also he gave the sum of N100 to Alhajiya Shuwa who refused the money. The Area Court decided the case to be in favour of Alhaji Mai Deribe contrary to Section 158 (1) of the Penal Code.”

The F.I.R. was read over and explained to the appellant in the Magistrate’s Court and, in answer thereto, the appellant stated “it is not true.” He was thereafter granted bail and the hearing proceeded with the evidence of the 1st P.W., one Alhaji Mai Deribe, against whom the prosecution alleged that the appellant had fabricated evidence.  

After this evidence, and on a subsequent date to which the further hearing of the case had been adjourned, learned counsel for the accused, now appellant, challenged the propriety of the F.I.R., submitting in effect that it was not properly before the court in as much as the provisions of Section 140(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been complied with.

The gravamen of the objection was and is that the F.I.R. having alleged “false evidence before Yerwa Civil Court” there should have been a complaint or a sanctioning of such complaint by the court concerned in order to ground jurisdiction in the Magistrate’s Court to try the appellant. In reply to this submission, the prosecution submitted that the case before the court was not dependent on Section 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that there being no reference to any court proceedings, it was not necessary for the prosecution to comply with the provisions of Section 140 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In a considered ruling, the learned Chief Magistrate overruled the preliminary objection and continued with the hearing of the case. Five witnesses thereafter gave evidence for the prosecution which then announced the close of its case.  At this stage, the Chief Magistrate made an order in these terms:-

“Order – adjourned to 4/12/73 for ruling. Bail extended.”

On the 4th December, 1973, when hearing was resumed in the case, the learned Chief Magistrate gave his reserved ruling and the records show the following notes by the Chief Magistrate:-

“Ruling:-

I have carefully considered the evidence before me and I hold that the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused on which a charge should be preferred against him. I will therefore charge the accused.

I, Joseph Chuma PHIL-EBOSIE, Chief Magistrate, do hereby charge you ZANNA MUSA HINDI, as follows:-

That you, some time in February to March, 1973, in Maiduguri, in the North Eastern Magisterial District, fabricated false evidence for the purpose of its being used in a claim against Alhaji Mai Deribe, by giving various sums of money to Alhaji Umar Shettima and others in order that they might give evidence in the Upper Area Court No. 2, Maiduguri, in a proposed claim of shop, a house and the sum of N10,000 belonging to late Zanna Laisu, which the said Alhaji Mai Deribe had in his possession, knowing same to be false, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 158 (1) of the Penal Code.

Charge read over and explained to the accused.
Accused pleads – Not guilty.

Akinyemi for accused states he does not want any witness for prosecution who had given evidence recalled.”