ALIYU v. F.R.N. & ORS (2020)

ALIYU v. F.R.N. & ORS

(2020)LCN/14228(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, May 22, 2020

CA/A/171C/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MUAZU BABANGIDA ALIYU APPELANT(S)

And

1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 2. TANKO BEJI 3. UMAR MOHAMMED NASKO RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHAT IS A PREDICATE OFFENCE” ?

What is a predicate offence? Recourse would be had to the Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition wherein “predicate act” and “Predicate Offence are separately described and defined.
On page 1368 of the said Dictionary the words “predicate act” are defined thus:
“predicate act” (1977) 1. See predicate offence under OFFENSE (2). 2. See lesser included offense under OFFENCE (2). 3. Under RICO, one of two or more related act of racketeering necessary to establish a pattern. See RAKKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANISATION ACT. 4. An act that must be completed before legal consequences can attach either to it or to another act or before further action can be taken. A predicate act itself may be criminalized if it is followed by or performed in tandem with another prohibited act. In statutes, words such as “if often precede a description of a predicate act.”
The same Dictionary as stated earlier defines “predicate of fence” thus:
(1969)1. An earlier offence that can be used to enhance a sentence levied for a later conviction. Predicate offences are defined by statute and are not uniform from state to state
2. See lesser included offence.” See page 125
It is also described as “lesser offence including” on page 1251 of the said Dictionary as follows:
“A Crime that is composed of some, but not all of the elements of a more serious crime and that is necessarily committed in carrying out the greater crime; battery is a lesser included offence of murder; for double jeopardy purposes a lesser included offence is considered the “same offence” as the greater offence, so that acquittal or conviction of either offence precludes a separate trial for the other –
Also termed included offence; necessarily included offence; predicate offence; predicate act; (csp. in English law) alternative verdict of cognate offence.”
To my mind, a predicate offence can be said to be an offence or criminal act which emanates or germinates from an earlier principal offence committed by an Accused/Defendant in a criminal investigation leading to trial. The later charge or offence against the Accused or a Defendant constitutes an offence or offences stemming out or arising from the earlier principal criminal act or offence for which Accused/Defendant has been charged or being prosecuted for. PER IGE, J.C.A.

THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN AN ACTION

Jurisdictional issue or point is always pivotal in adjudication over cause or matter instituted before a Court or Tribunal. Jurisdiction is the heart beat of every litigation or suit Civil or Criminal. Any proceeding or trial embarked upon or undertaken without necessary jurisdiction by a Court or Tribunal will be a nullity. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and the Court seised of the cause or matter can also raise it suo motu. It is the engine room of and Court or Tribunal.
See: 1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA V. ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AT 520 B – E per OBASEKI, JSC. who said:-
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court of Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim, it is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue or jurisdiction determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the Appeal Courts.
This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court it is the duty of the Judge or justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see Odiase V. Agho (supra). – There is no justice in exercisingjurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.” Just as the pleadings of the parties in action commenced by writ of summons or Affidavit in support in an action begin by originating summons determines the jurisdiction of a Court seised of the matter, the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal in Criminal Proceedings will be determined by the charge laid against a Defendant or Accused in the Criminal proceedings. Any fundamental defect in a cause or matter will lead to the incompetence of a Court and it renders the proceedings conducted by such Court a nullity. It is not the transaction forming or culminating in the charge but whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the offences constituting the charge laid against the Defendant or an Accused person.
See: 1. A. F. OSAREREN V. FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (PART 1627) 221 at 231 G – H per EKO JSC.
2. OCHONOGOR ALEX V. FRN (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1618) 228 at 239 A – C per NWEZE, JSC
3. ADAOHA UGO-NGADI V. FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (PART 1620) 20 at 58 H per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:
“In determining the Court with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a criminal matter, the Court would always consider the nature of the charge rather than the transaction forming the subject matter of the charge or the documents attached as proof of evidence.”
4. FRN V. OKEY NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR (PART 1541) 226 at 290 A – B per M. D MUHAMMAD, JSC who said:
“It has long been settled that in determining whether or not it has jurisdiction to try on offence the Court will consider the charge vis-a-vis the enabling law. See Onwudiwe V. FRN(2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 988) 382.” PER IGE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE PROSECUTOR’S RIGHT TO FILE A CHARGE

The law is now fully settled that a Court cannot interfere with the prosecutor’s right to file a charge nor can it prevent the EFCC from initiating a charge or information against any person in the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or the FCT High Court once the matter or criminal proceedings has to do with economic or financial crimes and there is a law in place whether under Act of National Assembly or law of a state for instance criminal code law or Penal Code Law criminalizing the crime(s) or offences for which the Defendant is arraigned or charged within a State High Court.
See ISIAKA MUMINI V. FRN (2018) 11 SCM 127 at 137 – 138 A – B per EKO JSC who said:
“I think it has to be borne in mind that the choice of the charge to prefer against the accused person on a given set of facts is the prerogative of the prosecutor. Neither the Court nor the accused person can interfere with the prerogative of the prosecutor in this regard. From a line of cases, including Yongo V. Commissioner of Police (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36; Alake V. The State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260: Chima Ijioffor V. The State (2001) 4 SC (pt. 11) 1; (2001) NWLR (Pt. 718) 371, the Courts recognize and respect this prerogative of the prosecutor to prefer any charge from the facts at his disposal. Thus as Achike, JSC, Stated in IJIOFFOR V. THE STATE (supra) the prosecutor’s – Prosecutorial responsibility is to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure the conviction of the (accused person).
How he gets about discharging this is entirely his business. Under no circumstance will the accused person dictate to the prosecution what charge shall be preferred or what witness(es) shall be fielded against him in discharge of the prosecutor’s prosecutorial responsibilities.” PER IGE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE EFCC HAS POWERS TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL OFFENCES

In Nyame V. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344, this Court held at page 403, paras. F-G that:-
“The Commission is the coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provisions of any other law or regulation or economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal Code and the Penal Code. The commission has the Power under Section 13(2) of the Act to prosecute offences so long as they are financial crimes.”
I need to add, at this stage, by re-echoing the voice of this Court Per Ngwuta, S.C. (P.32. paras. E-G) (Dariye V. FRN) that, institution of proceeding against any person before any Court in Nigeria other than a Court martial is not the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney-General of the Federation and/or his counterpart in the State. Section 174 (1) (b) and (c) and Section 211(1)(b) and (c). This becomes more compelling given the provisions of the Act.
I will take a few minutes to quote extensively from the specific provisions of the EFCC Act, to justify the position of this Court that there are several agencies, bodies and institutions, beyond the Attorney-General of the Federation and/or his counterpart in the State, with powers to prosecute specific offences.
“7(1) That the Commission has power to –
(a) cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person corporate body or organization has committed an offence under this Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes; and
(b) cause investigations to be conducted into the properties of any person if it appears to the Commission that the person’s life style and extent of the properties are not justified by his source of income.
(2) In addition to the powers conferred on the Commission by this Act, the Commission shall be the coordinating agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of:
“(a) The Money Laundering Act 2004; 2003 NO.7. 1995; No. 13
(b) The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 1995;
(c) The Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994, (as amended);
(d) The Bank and other Financial Institutions Act 1991, as amended and Miscellaneous Offences Act; and
(f) Any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the Criminal Code and Penal Code.
13(1) The General and Assets Investigation Unit shall be charged with responsibilities for –
(a) The prevention and detection of offences in violation of the provisions of this Act;
(b) The arrest and apprehension of economic and financial crime perpetrators;
(c) The investigation of assets and properties of persons arrested for committing any offence under this Act;
(d) The identification and tracing of proceeds and properties involved in any offence under this Act and the forfeiture of such proceeds and properties to the Federal Government; and
(e) Dealing with matters connected with extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters involving economic and financial offences.
(2) The Legal and Prosecution Unit shall be charged with responsibility for –
(a) Prosecuting offenders under this Ac
(b) Supporting the General and Assets Investigation Unit by providing the unit with legal advice and assistance, wherever it is required;
(c) Conducting such proceedings as may be necessary towards the recovery of any assets or properly forfeited under this Act and
(d) Performing such other legal duties as the Commission may refer to it from time to time.
(3) There shall be appointed for each of the units a principal officer who shall be known by such designation as the commission may determine.
Clearly, it is absolutely impossible to agree less, that the above quoted provisions of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act Cap. E1, LFN, Vol. 5, 2004 empowers the prosecutors in legal and prosecution unit of the EFCC to prosecute any person who commits any of the offences that the Commission is empowered to prosecute under the Act. The lower Court was, therefore, right in my view to have applied the law correctly when it held that the powers and duties of the EFCC as stated under Section 13 (2) allows the Legal and Prosecution Unit of the Commission to prosecute offenders under the Act.
Without prevarications, Section 7(2)(a) empowered the EFCC to enforce any law or regulations relating to Economic and Financial Crimes, including the Penal Code. It is not in contention that:
“(1) The Attorney-General of Katsina State has donated a flat to the respondent’s agency (the EFCC) to prosecute the appellants pursuant to Section 211 of the Constitution;
(2) By Section 7 (1) the Commission has power to cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed an offence under the Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes;
(3) By Section 7(2), in addition to the powers conferred on the Commission by the Act, the Commission shall be the coordinating Agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of (f) any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the Criminal Code and Penal Code.
(4) By the provisions of Section 13 (2) the Legal and Prosecution Unit shall be charged with responsibility for prosecuting the offenders.” PER IGE, J.C.A.

HIERARCHY OF LAWS IN NIGERIA

The law on the hierarchy of laws in Nigeria, is as stated by Kalgo, JSC (as he then was) in A.-G. Abia State v. A.-G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.763) 264 at page 479, paras. G-H:
“The Constitution is what is called the grundnorm and the fundamental law of the land. All other legislations in the land take their hierarchy from the provisions of the Constitution. By the provisions of the Constitution, the laws made by the National Assembly come next to the Constitution, followed by those made by the House of Assembly of a State.” PER IGE, J.C.A.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By his application dated and filed on the 30th October, 2017, the Appellant prayed the lower Court for the following Orders/Reliefs namely:-
“TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court shall be moved on… day of October, 2017; at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as Counsel to the 1st Accused/Applicant can be heard praying this Honourable Court for the following Orders/reliefs:
1. AN Order of this Honourable Court striking out the criminal charges contained in the case NO. NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
2. AN Order directing that the charges in case No: NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017 be transferred to the Federal High Court Minna Niger State.
3. And for such further Orders or other Orders as this Honouroble Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT:
(a) This Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to try the alleged offences having been provided for by the Money Laundering Act 2011 (as amended).
(b) The complaints against the 1st Accused/Applicant are for conspiracy and

conversion of ecological funds transferred to the Niger State Government by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(c) The compliant against the 1st and 3rd Accused persons in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 is for alleged conspiracy and Money Laundering of ecological funds between June, 2014 and July 2014.
(d) The Courts under the two charges that is to say in charge No. NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017 and FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 in both the High Court Minna Niger State and Federal High Court Minna arose from the same transaction.
(e) The parties in both Courts – High Court Minna Niger State and Federal High Court Minna state are the some.
(f) The proof of evidence in the two Court depicts the same set of document, witnesses and statements.”
The application was accompanied with 20 paragraphs Affidavit as follows:-
“I Akinyele Opeyemi Ayodele Male, Christian, Nigerian citizen of No. 16 Baltic Crescent Abuja make Oath and state as follows –
1. That I am one of the Counsel representing the Applicant in this case and I have his authority and that of the other Counsel leading me in this case to depose to this affidavit from facts

within my knowledge and information received by me, if any, which I believe to be true and correct.
2. That on the 25th day of April, the 3rd accused and the applicant were arraigned before this Honourable Court on charged of conspiracy and conversion of ecological funds which the Federal Government of Nigeria allocated to the Niger State Government of Nigeria.
3.That on the 6th day of May, 2017, the 1st accused person Dr. Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu and the 3rd accused person Umar Mohammed Nasko were arraigned before the Federal High Court Abuja Division presided over by Honourable Justice Nnamdi Dimgba in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 for on alleged offence of money laundering arising from the same set of facts as in charge No. NSHC/EFCC.2C/2017. A copy of the charge sheet is attached herewith and marked Exhibit AOA1. And the proof of evidence in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 is attached herewith and marked Exhibit AOA2.
4. That from the proof of Evidence in the two set of charges in charge No. NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017 and FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017, the proof of evidence shows that the event took place between April, 2014 and July, 2014.
5.That the proof of

evidence in the present charge before this Honourable Court charge No. NSHC/EFCC/2C/2017 and charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 are the same in content and the charges are generally termed Money Laundering.
6. That the offence of Money Laundering is triable by the Federal High Court.
7. There is a Federal High Court in Minna, Niger State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
8. I know as a fact that on the basis of forum non convenience Honourable Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court Abuja Division on the 5th of October, 2017 got the Ag. Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 to the Federal High Court Minna, Niger State.
i. I attach herewith certified true copy of the Federal High Court Abuja proceedings dated 5th October, 2017 requesting the Ag. Chief Judge to transfer the matter to Minna Niger State, the same is shown to me attached to this affidavit and marked Exhibit AOA3.
ii. The Order of the Court dated 6th October, 2017 requesting the Ag. Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer the trial of Charges No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 to Minna Niger State is attached to this

affidavit and marked Exhibit AOA4.
iii. The Ag. Chief Judge’s Order of transfer is attached to this affidavit and marked Exhibit AOA5.
9. The complaint before this Honourable Court against the 1st accused Applicant are for conspiracy and conversion of ecological funds between April 2014 and July 2014.
10.The complaints in the Federal High Court in Charge No. FHC.ABJ/CR/71/2017 are for conspiracy and Money Laundering of ecological funds between June 2014 and July 2014.
11. That the charges as laid against the 1st Accused/Applicant arose from the same transaction.
12. That the proof of evidence filed in both the Federal High Court Minna and this Honourable Court, it is clear that the complaint is the charges laid against the Applicant arose out of the ecological funds given to the Niger State Government by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That the complainant is relying on the same set of documents, statement made by witnesses and proof of evidence.
13. The Federal high Court, has jurisdiction over offences bordering on Money Laundering.
14. The offences allegedly committed are against the Government of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria.
15. The transfer of the charges before this Honourable Court to the Federal High Court Minna will prevent a multiplicity of trial on allegations against the applicant over the same transaction on the same facts.
16. Ecological funds are funds provided to State Government by the Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
17. All the charges filed by the Respondent – the Federal Republic of Nigeria relate to the ecological funds which is from the revenue of the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
18. The charges before this Honourable Court and those before the Federal High Court Minna, Niger State are about the same transaction and relate to the some funds made available to the Niger State Government by the Federal Government and described as ecological funds.
19. …
20. I depose to this affidavit conscientiously believing the fact deposed to herein by me to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief in accordance with the Oaths Act.”

The application was duly heard and the lower Court gave considered Ruling on the application on 11th

December, 2017 dismissing the Appellant’s application. The lower Court found as follows:-
“While the Applicants rely inter alia, on the case of FRN V. YAHAYA (supra) the Respondent relies among other cases, on FRN V. NWOSU & ORS SUPRA. In FRN V. YAHAYA SUPRA, the Court of Appeal held that the offences of conspiracy” breach of trust or any other offence under any law are predicate offences and the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try them, relying on OLAGBENRO & ORS V. OLAYIWO (2014) LPELR – 2297 (CA) (2014) 17 NWLR (Part 1436) 317. In the case of FRN V. NWOSU supra, the Supreme Court distinguished the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court from that of the High Court vis-a-vis the offences created by the National Assembly and the offences created by a State House of Assembly. The jurisdiction of the two Courts, the Supreme Court held, are mutually exclusive;
One is limited to hearing and determining offences created by the National Assembly while the State Assembly (Lagos House of Assembly in that case) legislated in its area of competence i.e. stealing or theft. In that case, the Supreme Court considered whether trial

of the 1st Respondent for different offences in 2 different counts amounted to abuse of the Court’s process. The apex Court held that there was no abuse of Court process and the Federal High Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence of stealing. The Supreme Court referred to Section 4(6) and 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution which vested power in the State Assembly to make laws for the good governance of the State; the power not being on the Exclusive Legislative List and held;
“Thus, whereas in the instant case, the Lagos State House of Assembly competently makes laws creating offences in respect of which Courts in the State may assume jurisdiction, the jurisdiction abides” subject to Section 23 (2) and (3) of the Constitution.”
In that case the Court also held that the 1st Respondent did not stand trial for stealing at the Federal High Court that is to say, the sum of N432,495,600.00. being also part of Ecological Funds for Zone B. The 5th count is contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code while counts 6 and 7 are contrary to Section 311 of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 312. The 8 counts in the charge in

suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 before the Federal High Court, Minna are clear. The 1st count alleges conspiracy between the same accused persons (1st and 3rd) to launder ecological funds released by the Federal Government to Niger State Government contrary to Section 18(3) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the Act; Count 2 alleges against the same accused persons taking indirect control of N210,000,000.00 out of N233,510,007.00 contrary to Section 15(2) of Act; Count 3 relates to indirectly taking control of N250,000,000.00 out of N253,182,500.00 and count 4 still alleges taking indirect control of N230,000,000.00 out of N243,539,253.50. While the sums of money involved in counts 2 – 8 save counts 7 and 8 are different, the offences were alleged to have been committed on different dates. The offences in both charges do not appear to be the same and on the authority FRN V. NWOSU supra this Court has jurisdiction to try the case before it.
Similarly, on the authority of FRN V. NWOSU, the arraignment of 1st and 3rd accused persons cannot be said to amount to abuse of the Court’s process or double jeopardy. Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution does

not apply because no trial has been concluded and there is no previous conviction or acquittal. Hearing in this case has not commenced. A pending trial is neither jeopardy, nor double jeopardy.
For the purpose of distinguishing money laundering from the offences, the Accused persons are charged with before this Court, the definition of Money Laundering which is not given by Section 25 of the Act may be instructive; Money Laundering, according to Toby Graham, Evan Beil & Nicholas Elliot in their book: MONEY LAUNDERING, Butterworths Lexis-Nexis 2003 at page 3 paragraph 1.3 is “the varied means used by criminals to conceal the origin of their activities. The term “laundering” is used because these technicalities are intended to turn “dirty” money into “clean” money, but Laundering is not confined to cash”. That is why Sections 15 and 16 have created offences related to Laundering such as conspiracy, aiding and abetting the offence of money laundering. See ORJI UZOR KALU V. FRN & ORS (2012) LPELR – 9287 (CA).
The issue of exclusive jurisdiction of Federal High Court relates only to laundering cases. That is where

Section 20 of the Laundering Act or other related enactments become applicable.
It is the charge before the Court that determines its jurisdiction: FRN V. NWOSU (supra) page 304. The arguments by the Applicants’ Counsel on the doctrine of covering the field does not avail the Applicants. I agree with the submission of the Respondent’s Counsel at paragraph 4.3 of his written address In support of the counter affidavit to the 3rd Accused’s Application in which the case of INEC V. MUSA (2003) 3 NWLR (Part 806) 72 was cited. The law on covering the field was lucidly stated by the Supreme Court in ATTORNEY-GENERAL ABIA STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (supra):
“Where a matter legislated upon is in the concurrent legislative list and the Federal Government has enacted a legislation in respect thereof, where the legislation enacted by the State is inconsistent with the legislation enacted by the Federal Government, it is indeed void and of no effect for inconsistency, where however, the legislation enacted by the State is the same as the one enacted by the Federal Government, where the two legislations are in pari materia.

I respectfully take the view that the legislation is in abeyance and becomes inoperative for the period the Federal legislation is in force. I will not say it is void”.
In the two cases, the legislations are on different matters. The Senior Counsel for the 3rd Accused/Applicant has contended that paragraphs 6, 8, 10a, 10b and 11b of the counter affidavit of the Respondent are extraneous. I have read the said paragraphs and come to the conclusion that they are in contravention of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, and they are struck out as they are argumentative and legal conclusions.
On the whole, both the applications of the 1st and 3rd Applicants have not demonstrated that they are grantable. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the case as disclosed in the amended charge against the accused persons. It is neither an abuse of the Court’s process nor double jeopardy. Consequently, the applications are dismissed. The case having earlier been set dawn for accelerated hearing, the Prosecution is ordered to commence hearing without further delay.”

The Appellant was aggrieved and has by his NOTICE OF APPEAL dated 21st December, 2017 and

filed on the same date appealed to this Court on four grounds which with their particulars are as follows:-
“2. PART OF THE DECISION COMPLAINED OF:
THE WHOLE DECISION.
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
(i) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held inter-alia as follows:
I have carefully examined the two charges before the Federal High Court and this Court and found that although the offences in both of them relate to the ecological funds they are distinctly different.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the Counts of Conspiracy and Conversion are predicate offences.
(b) The Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the sums of money, involved in the case are the same – belonging to ecological funds.
(c) The sums of money involved in the commission of the offence are from the Ecological funds.
(d) Though the dates of the alleged offences are different the sums of money involved are from the same source Ecological funds.
(ii) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that the offences with which the Appellant is charged with before the High Court can be

distinguished from Money, Laundering which according to Toby Graham, Evan Beil and Nicholas Elliot in their Book MONEY LAUNDERING BUTTER WORTH LEXIS: – NEXIS 2003 at page 3 paragraph 1.3 is;
“The varied means used by criminals to conceal the origin of their activities. The term laundering is used because these techniques are intended to turn “dirty” money into (Clean Money)” but that is why Sections 15 and 16 have created offences related to laundering such as conspiracy, aiding and abetting the offence of money laundering. See ORJI UZOR KALU V. FRN & ORS 2012 LPELR- 9287 (CA).”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The offences of Conspiracy and conversion of sums of money are predicate offences to the offence of money laundering.
(b) The sums of money involved are from the Ecological Funds – the same source.
(c) The charges though not specifically held out that is Criminal Breach of Trust and or conversion are implied and involved with regard to the Money Laundering charge.
iii. The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held inter alia:
“The argument by the Applicant’s counsel on the doctrine

of covering the field does not a “avail the application, I agree with the submission of the Respondents counsel at paragraph 4.3 of his written address in support of the counter-affidavit to the 3rd accused’s application in which the case of INEC V. MUSA (2003) 3 N.W.L.R (PART 806) was cited.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. The doctrine of covering the field would apply in this case.
ii. There is a state legislation covering criminal breach of trust, a federal legislation covering criminal breach of trust, a federal legislation in respect of Money Laundering.
iii. The offences of Conspiracy Criminal Breach of Trust are involved in Money Laundering.
iv. The doctrine of converting the field was emphasized in INEC V. MUSA (SUPRA).
(iv) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held inter alia as follows:
“I have carefully: examined the two charges before the Federal High Court and this Court and found that although the offences in both of them relate to the ecological funds they are distinctly different.”
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The alleged offences relate to the same funds.
(b) The offences

alleged to have been committed in the High Court Criminal Breach of Trust, Conversion are predicate offences to the offences in the Federal High Court.
4. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL:
Striking out the charges in the High Court of Niger State and directing a continuation of the Charges in the Federal High Court Minna.”

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was dated and filed on 4th May, 2018 and deemed properly filed on 20th January, 2020. The 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 27th March, 2019 was filed on 4th April, 2019 but deemed properly filed on 27th day of February, 2020. The appeal was heard on 27th February, 2020 when learned Counsel to the Appellant and 1st Respondent adopted their Briefs of Argument.

The learned Senior Counsel to the Appellant OLAJIDE AYODELE, SAN distilled three issues for determination as follows:-
“(a) Whether the trial of the Appellant in charge Number FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 subsumes the charges preferred against him in the State High Court.
(b) Whether the charges of Criminal Breach of Trust Conversion and Conspiracy preferred against the Appellant in charge

No. NSHC/MN/EFCC/2C/2017 in the Minna High Court are predicate offences to the charge of Money Laundering preferred against the Appellant in the Federal High Court.
(c) Whether the doctrine of converting the field applies in this case and/or the High Court lacks jurisdiction to try the case as constituted in view of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 as amended.”

The learned Silk to the 1st Respondent OLUMUYIWA AKINBORO SAN also nominated two issues for determination of the appeal thus:-
“a) Whether the trial Court has the jurisdiction to try the Appellant for the offence of Conspiracy and Criminal Breach of Trust under the Penal Code Law of Niger State in view of the pendency of Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 against the Appellant for the offence of Money Laundering under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and whether the Offences contained in the Charge at the State High Court is a Predicate Offence to the Charge at the Federal High Court.
b) Whether the Doctrine of Covering the Field applies in this case.”

The appeal can be determined on the issues raised for determination by the Appellant viz:-<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

“(a) Whether the trial of the Appellant in charge Number FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 subsumes the charges preferred against him in the State High Court.
(b) Whether the charges of Criminal Breach of Trust Conversion and Conspiracy preferred against the Appellant in charge No. NSHC/MN/EFCC/2C/2017 in the Minna High Court are predicate offences to the charge of Money Laundering preferred against the Appellant in the Federal High Court.
(c) Whether the doctrine of covering the field applies in this case and or the, High Court locks Jurisdiction to try the case as constituted in view of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 as amended.”

The three issues will be considered and taken together. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that one thing that is very clear from the two sets of charges before the High Court Minna and the Federal High Court Minna is that Money Laundering was made against the Appellant in charges before the Federal High Court while the allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust was made against the Appellant in charges before the High Court. According to the learned Silk to the Appellant the allegation of Criminal Breach of

Trust, Conversion and Conspiracy are predicate offences to the offence of Money Laundering with which the Appellant has been charged in the Federal High Court.

On what a predicate offence is the learned Silk relied on the case of FRN V. NASIRU YAHAYA (2016) 2 NWLR (PT. 1496) 252 AT PAGES 272 – 272 and 277.

To the Learned Silk, the charge preferred against the Appellant in the State High Court in Charge No. NSHC/MN/EFCC/2C/2017 are predicate offences to the Charge of Money Laundering preferred against him in Counts numbers 4, 5 and 6 in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CF/71/2017 dated 20th day of April, 2017 marked Exhibit AOA1 to the Appellant Affidavit in support of the application at the lower Court. The charges before the proceeding in the Application filed before the High Court is Charge with Mo. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 marked Exhibit 2 to the said application.

That the learned trial Judge fell into errors trying to justify that the Counts in the two separate charges at Federal High Court respectively are not the same. According to learned Silk the lower Court did not appreciate the points being agitated by the Appellant which according to Appellant’s learned

Silk is that allegations of Criminal Breach of Trust and Conversion in the case before the lower Court are predicate offences to the offence of Money Laundering before the Federal High Court which he said has exclusive jurisdiction to try the case of Money Laundering, but that the learned trial Judge took the view that the present case on appeal is the sonic as the case of FRN V. NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR (PT. 1541) 226 AT 305 F – G. That this case is not the same as NWOSU’s case in that in this case Money Laundering Charges have come as a result of Criminal Breach of Trust of the sums of money by the Appellant otherwise according to him, there will be no question of his trying to launder the money, that the alleged Laundering of Money is a continuation of the Breach of Trust or Conversion of the money by the Accused person. That as such Money Laundering Offence is stated committed, to have been the Criminal Breach of Trust is in the circumstances a predicate offence to Money Laundering.

That the question is whether or not since the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is a predicate offence to Offence of Money Laundering which according to learned Senior

Counsel only Federal High Court has jurisdiction to try same, it will not be appropriate for the Niger State High Court to take over jurisdiction of the entire case.

The high point of his submission can be found in paragraph 1 page 9 of the Appellant’s Brief which Appellant’s Senior Counsel argued as follows:-
“It is therefore clear that in the present case on appeal, the offences of Conspiracy. Criminal Breach of Trust are predicate of fences to the offence of Money Laundering which have been set out on the heads of charge numbered as 4, 5 and 6 respectively in the charges before the Federal High Court Minna in Exhibit AOA2 in the affidavit numbered as paragraph 3, on page 12 to 14 of the record of proceedings. This is the basis of stating that in the Criminal Breach of Trust/Conspiracy and Conversion are predicate of fences to the offence of Money Laundering which is exclusively triable by the Federal High Court. The State High Court has no Jurisdiction over the matter in the circumstances.”

On whether the doctrine of covering the field applies in this case, the learned Silk to the Appellant relied on the following cases of what

doctrine of covering the field connotes viz:-
1. INEC V. MUSA (2003) FWLR (PT. 145) 72 AT 811 – 812;
2. A.G. OGUN STATE V. AG. FEDERATION (1982) 3 NCLR 166 AT 176;
3. A.G. ABIA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (no citation was supplied).

He stated that the doctrine was applicable to the Appellants case and then referred to page 9 of the record of proceedings; Count Six before the lower Court to contend that the Charge contains Money Laundering Charges in Counts 5, 6 and 7 in the charges before the Federal High Court. Again, Appellant saw it as predicate offence for offences with which the Appellant was charged in Counts 5, 6 and 7 at Federal High Court.

He submitted further relying on the case of INEC V. MUSA SUPRA as follows:-
“In the circumstances, the legislation made by the National Assembly will be in operation. It would therefore appear that the charges before the State High Court are predicate of fences to the ones before the Federal High Court. It must be borne in mind that it has not been shown that the sums of money involved are different from Environmental Ecological Consultancy Project. The Federal Legislation on Money Laundering

supersedes the State Legislation on Conversion, Criminal Breach of Trust e.t.c which are all covered by State Legislation. The charges of Money Laundering already filed against the Appellant before the Federal High Court covers these charges.”
He finally urged the Court to allow the appeal.

In response to the Appellant’s submissions, the learned Senior Counsel to the 1st Respondent AARE OLUMUYIWA AKINBORO, SAN is of the view that the case of the Appellant is that the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to try the Appellant for the Of fences of Conspiracy and Criminal Breach of Trust under the Penal Code Law of Niger State in view of the pendency of Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 against the Appellant for Offence of Money Laundering under Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 as amended also taking place at MINNA DIVISION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT.

The learned Senor Counsel to the 1st Respondent opined that in Criminal Law and Administration of Criminal Justice what determines jurisdiction is the enabling law as well as the Charge preferred against the Accused. He relied on the case of FRN V. NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR (PT. 1541) 226 AT 304 A- B. He stated that

the Appellant was charged under the Penal Code Law of Niger State duly enacted by Niger State House of Assembly pursuant to Section 4(6) of the CFRN 1999 as amended.

That the contention of the Appellant that the charges preferred against him at both the High Court and the Federal High Court Minna amounts to double jeopardy is unfounded and grossly misconceived. On what is double jeopardy, he relied on the case of IGBINEDION V. FRN (2014) LPELR 22766 (CA) 43 A – D and Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

On when the doctrine of double jeopardy can apply, he relied on the cases of:-
1. FRN V. NWOSU (SUPRA) 294 – 295 E – A:
2. ROMRIG (NIG) LTD V. FRN (2017) LPELR – 43834 (SC) 2729 E – E per SANUSI, JSC.

That from the said cases the doctrine of double jeopardy has not arisen. He stated that the Supreme Court has in the case of FRN V. NWOSU SUPRA distinguished the jurisdiction of Federal High Court from that of a High Court vis-a-vis the of fences created by the Notional Assembly and the offences created by State House of Assembly. That the jurisdiction are mutually exclusive in that while one is limited to the hearing of offences

created by National Assembly, the other determines offences created by the State in its area of competence and in the instant case, the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, Conversion and Cheating as the case may be. That Niger State House of Assembly has powers to make laws for the good governance of the State and therefore within its ambit to enact Penal Code Law of Niger State particularly Sections 97 and 311 thereof which created the offences for which Appellant is standing trial.

He stated that the Appellant was not charged for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust at the Federal High Court in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/71/2017 BUT FOR OFFENCE OF Money Laundering pursuant to the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act as amended. That the offences are prosecutable in different Courts and jurisdictions under distinct and different laws. He relied on the cases of:-
1. UDEOGU V. FRN & ORS (2016) LPELR – 40102 SC;
2. AJIBOYE V. FRN (2018) LPELR – 44468 SC 36 – 37 D – B;
3. ZAKARIYA V. FRN (2018) LPELR 4399 CA PP. 16 – 17 F – B.

He submitted that the offences of Conspiracy to commit breach of trust are clearly provided under Section 97 and

311 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State triable by the Niger State High Court while the offences of Conspiracy to commit Money Laundering Offence pursuant to Section 18(1) and 15(2) of the Money Laundering Act as amended are triable exclusively by the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 20(1) of the Act. He relied on the cases of FRN V. YAHAYA supra.

On whether the doctrine of covering the field applies in this case, the learned Senior Counsel to the 1st Respondent stated that the doctrine is irrelevant in this case because there is no inconsistency between the provisions of Sections 97 & 311 of Penal Code Law of Niger State 1992 and the provisions of Sections 15(2) and 18(3) of Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act as amended. He relied on the cases of:-
1. INEC V. MUSA SUPRA P. 108 C – F;
2. UWAJEH V. UWAJEH (2007) LPELR – 8767 (CA).

He urged the Court to discountenance issue “C” as it is designed to deliberately delay the expeditious hearing of the Charge against the Appellant and that this amounts to crass abuse of Court process. He relied on the case of DARIYE V. FRN SUPRA 355 F – G. Learned Silk to the 1st Respondent concluded

his submissions in paragraph 2.5 of 1st Respondent’s Brief as follows:-
“3.2.5 Summarising the above arguments, we submit with respect that the State High Court has the requisite Jurisdiction to entertain and try the Appellant on the distinct offences charged vis-a-vis the Federal High Court exercising their Exclusive powers to try the Appellant on the Charge before it.
We therefore submit that the Appellant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the State High Court. We humbly urge Your Lordships to uphold the decision/ruling of the learned trial Court delivered on the 11th day of December 2017 by Hon. Justice Aliyu Mayaki and dismiss this Appeal for disclosing no Issue on the merit.”
He urged the Court to resolve all issues against the Appellant.

Now at the height of the Appellant’s appeal is that the High Court of Niger State has no jurisdiction to the offences of Criminal Breach of trust, conspiracy and conversion brought against the Appellant in that Court on the ground that they “are predicate offence of money laundering which is exclusively triable by the Federal High Court.”

What is a predicate offence? Recourse would

be had to the Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition wherein “predicate act” and “Predicate Offence are separately described and defined.
On page 1368 of the said Dictionary the words “predicate act” are defined thus:
“predicate act” (1977) 1. See predicate offence under OFFENSE (2). 2. See lesser included offense under OFFENCE (2). 3. Under RICO, one of two or more related act of racketeering necessary to establish a pattern. See RAKKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANISATION ACT. 4. An act that must be completed before legal consequences can attach either to it or to another act or before further action can be taken. A predicate act itself may be criminalized if it is followed by or performed in tandem with another prohibited act. In statutes, words such as “if often precede a description of a predicate act.”
The same Dictionary as stated earlier defines “predicate of fence” thus:
(1969)1. An earlier offence that can be used to enhance a sentence levied for a later conviction. Predicate offences are defined by statute and are not uniform from state to state
2. See lesser included offence.”
See page 1252<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>

It is also described as “lesser offence including” on page 1251 of the said Dictionary as follows:
“A Crime that is composed of some, but not all of the elements of a more serious crime and that is necessarily committed in carrying out the greater crime; battery is a lesser included offence of murder; for double jeopardy purposes a lesser included offence is considered the “same offence” as the greater offence, so that acquittal or conviction of either offence precludes a separate trial for the other –
Also termed included offence; necessarily included of fence; predicate offence; predicate act; (csp. in English law) alternative verdict of cognate offence.”
To my mind, a predicate offence can be said to be an offence or criminal act which emanates or germinates from an earlier principal offence committed by an Accused/Defendant in a criminal investigation leading to trial. The later charge or offence against the Accused or a Defendant constitutes an offence or offences stemming out or arising from the earlier principal criminal act or offence for which Accused/Defendant has been charged or being prosecuted for.
It is similar to paragraph

Paragraph 18(1) (3) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in the 5th Schedule to Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended which provides:
“18 (1) Where the Code of Conduct Tribunal finds a public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of this Code, it shall impose upon that officer any of the punishments specified under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph and such other punishment as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
(2) The punishment which the Code of Conduct Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following-
(a) vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, as the case may be:
(b) disqualification from membership of a legislative house and from the holding of any public office for a period not exceeding ten years; and
(c) seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.
(3) The sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence. (Underlined mine)
It is an offence or crime committed in the

course of commission of a bigger or parent offence created or criminalized by a statute or Act of parliament. The smaller offence or predicate offence can be tried or prosecuted under the same law or Act or under another Act of National Assembly or under a state law in this country.

The Appellant had earlier been arraigned before the Federal High Court Abuja on 2nd May, 2017 on an eight (8) count charge as follows:
COUNT 1
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources in Niger State) sometime in 2014 at Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did conspire between yourselves to commit an offence to wit: Money Laundering of ecological funds released by the Federal Government to the Niger State Government and thereby committed on offence contrary to Section 16(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the some Act.
COUNT 2
That you, Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu “(whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State)

and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources in Niger State) between 2nd and 10th June, 2014 at Minna within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N210,000,000.00 (Two Hundred end Ten Million Naira only) out of the sum of N233,510,007.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty three Million, Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Seven Naira only paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to ID-SABIN Investment Limited for environment/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of Zone “A” & “C” of Niger State which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT 3
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources in Niger State) between 27th June,

2014 and 9th July, 2014 at Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira only) out of the sum of N253,182,500.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Three Million, One Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira only) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to ID-SABIN Investment Limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of Zones “A” & “C” of Niger State which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.
COUNT 4
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources in Niger State) between 16th and 17th July, 2014 at Minna within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did

indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N230,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty Million Naira only) out of the total sum of N243,539,253.50 (Two Hundred and Forty, Three Million, Five Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Three Naira, Fifty Kobo) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to ID-SABIN Investment Limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of zone “A” & “C” of Niger State which money you reasonable ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of unlawful act corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT 5
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resource in Niger State) between 4th and 5th December, 2014 at Minna within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N110,000,000.00

(One Hundred and Ten Million Naira only) out of the sum of N116,775,003.50 (One Hundred and Sixteen Million Seven Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Three Naira, Fifty Kobo) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to ID-SABIN Investment limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of Zones “A” & “C” of Niger State which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act… (prohibition Act 2011 (as amended)) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT 6
That you, Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources Niger State) on or about 28th May, 2014 within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N184,800,000.00

(One Hundred and Eight Four Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira only) out of the N487,495,600.00 (Four Hundred and Eight Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six Hundred Naira only) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to MJ Eco Projects Limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of Zone “B” of Niger State which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.
COUNT 7
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources Niger State) on or about 23rd July, 2014 within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N478,495,600.00 (Four Hundred and Eight Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six

Hundred Naira only) out of the N487,495,600.00 (Four Hundred and Eight Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six Hundred Naira only) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to MJ Eco Projects Limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company in respect of Zone “B” of Niger State which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.
COUNT B
That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu (whilst being the Executive Governor of Niger State) and Umar Muhammed Nasko (whilst being the Commissioner for Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources Niger State) on or about 28th December, 2014 within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did indirectly take control of the aggregate sum of N478,495,600.00 (Four Hundred and Eight Seven Million Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six Hundred Naira only) out of the N487,495,600.00 (Four Hundred

and Eight Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Six Hundred Naira only) paid by the Niger State Ministry of Environment, Parks, Gardens and Forest Resources to MJ Eco Projects Limited for environmental/ecological consultancy project awarded to the company on respect of Zone “B” of Niger state which money you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: corruption and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15(2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

The charge and the trial of the Appellant were later transferred to the Division of Federal High Court, Minna.

As could be seen from the counts contained in the charge at the Federal High Court, the Appellant was arraigned at Federal High Court for offences under the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011. So soon thereafter, the Appellant and others were arraigned on a 2nd Amended Charge contained seven (7) counts under Sections 85, 97, 311 and 312 of the PENAL CODE OF NIGER STATE, Cap 94 Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State Nigeria 1992. The said 2nd Amended charge reads:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

COUNT ONE
“That you Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015 and Tanko Beji sometime between 1st January, 2011 and 31st May, 2011 in Minna within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did agree between yourselves to do an illegal act, to wit criminal breach of trust and you thereby committed on offence punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94, Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992.
COUNT TWO
That you Dr. Muazu Bobangida Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015 sometime between 1st January, 2011 and 31st May, 2011 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court while being entrusted with dominion over money belonging to Niger State Government dishonestly, converted to your own use the sum of N937,110,00.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty-seven Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) which was withdrawn from Niger State Government House Security Account number 1012424374 domiciled in Zenith Bank Plc and you thereby committed an offence contrary to

Section 311 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94, Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State of Nigeria 1992 and Punishable under Section 312 of the same Code.
COUNT THREE
That you Tanko, Beji sometime between 1st January, 2011 and 31st May, 2011 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court abetted the commission of criminal breach of trust by intentionally aiding Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu, the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State to dishonestly convert to his own use the sum of N937,110,500.00 (Nine Hundred and Thirty-seven Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) which was withdrawn from Niger State Government House Security, Account Number, 1012424374 domiciled in Zenith Bank Plc and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 85 and 312 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap. 94, Vol.3, Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992.
COUNT FOUR
That you Dr. Muazu Bobangida Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015 sometime between April 2015 and May, 2015 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court while being

entrusted with dominion over money belonging to Niger State Government dishonestly converted to your own use the sum of N1,090,000,000.00 (One Billion, Ninety Million Naira) (which form part of the proceeds of the sale of 16% shares of Niger state in North South Power Company limited) and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 311 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94, Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992 and Punishable under Section 312 of the some Code.
COUNT FIVE
That you Dr. Muazu Bobangida Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015, Umar Nasko being, the former Commissioner, Niger State Ministry of Environment and Ibrahim Nasko (Still at large) sometime between April 2014 and July 2014 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did agree between yourselves to do an illegal act, to wit: criminal breach of trust and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 97 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94, Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992.
COUNT SIX
That you Dr. Muazu Babangido Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known

as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015 and Umar Nasko being the former Commissioner, Niger State Ministry of Environment sometime between April 2014 and July 2014 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court while being entrusted with dominion over money belonging to Niger State Government dishonestly converted to your own use the sum of N800,000.000.00 (Eight Hundred Million Naira) which sum forms part of the Ecological Funds meant for Environmental/Ecological Consultancy, project by the Niger State Ministry of Environment for Zone A and C of Niger State and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 31 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94 Vol. 3 Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992 and Punishable under Section 312 of the same Code.
COUNT SEVEN
That you Dr. Muazu Babargida Aliyu, being the former Governor (also known as Chief Servant) of Niger State from 2007 to 2015, Umar Nasko being the former Commissioner, Niger State, Ministry of Environment and Ibrahim Nasko (Still at large) sometime in May, 2014 in Minna within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court while being entrusted with dominion over money

belonging to Niger State Government dishonestly converted to your own use the sum of N432,495,600.00 (Four Hundred and Thirty two Million Four Hundred and Ninety five Thousand, Six Hundred Naira) which sum forms part of the Ecological funds meant for Environmental/Ecological Consultancy project by the Niger State Ministry of Environment for Zone B of Niger State and you thereby committed on offence contrary to Section 311 of the Penal Code Law of Niger State, Cap 94. Vol. 3, Laws of Niger State of Nigeria, 1992 and Punishable under Section 312 of the same Code.
DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017.”

The Appellant contended vehemently that the lower Court is devoid of jurisdiction.

Court or Tribunal.
See: 1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA V. ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AT 520 B – E per OBASEKI, JSC. who said:-
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court of Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim, it is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue or jurisdiction determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the Appeal Courts.
This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court it is the duty of the Judge or justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see Odiase V. Agho (supra). – There is no justice in exercising

jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.”

Just as the pleadings of the parties in action commenced by writ of summons or Affidavit in support in an action begin by originating summons determines the jurisdiction of a Court seised of the matter, the jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal in Criminal Proceedings will be determined by the charge laid against a Defendant or Accused in the Criminal proceedings. Any fundamental defect in a cause or matter will lead to the incompetence of a Court and it renders the proceedings conducted by such Court a nullity. It is not the transaction forming or culminating in the charge but whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the offences constituting the charge laid against the Defendant or an Accused person.
See: 1. A. F. OSAREREN V. FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (PART 1627) 221 at 231 G – H per EKO JSC.
2. OCHONOGOR ALEX V. FRN (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1618) 228 at 239 A – C per NWEZE, JSC
3. ADAOHA UGO-NGADI V. FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (PART 1620) 20 at 58 H per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:
“In determining the Court with the requisite jurisdiction to

entertain a criminal matter, the Court would always consider the nature of the charge rather than the transaction forming the subject matter of the charge or the documents attached as proof of evidence.”
4. FRN V. OKEY NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR (PART 1541) 226 at 290 A – B per M. D MUHAMMAD, JSC who said:
“It has long been settled that in determining whether or not it has jurisdiction to try on offence the Court will consider the charge vis-a-vis the enabling law. See Onwudiwe V. FRN(2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 988) 382.”

137 – 138 A – B per EKO JSC who said:
“I think it has to be borne in mind that the choice of the charge to prefer against the accused person on a given set of facts is the prerogative of the prosecutor. Neither the Court nor the accused person can interfere with the prerogative of the prosecutor in this regard. From a line of cases, including Yongo V. Commissioner of Police (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 36; Alake V. The State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260: Chima Ijioffor V. The State (2001) 4 SC (pt. 11) 1; (2001) NWLR (Pt. 718) 371, the Courts recognize and respect this prerogative of the prosecutor to prefer any charge from the facts at his disposal. Thus as Achike, JSC, Stated in IJIOFFOR V. THE STATE (supra) the prosecutor’s – Prosecutorial responsibility is to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure the conviction of the (accused person).
How he gets about discharging this is entirely his business. Under no circumstance will the accused person dictate to the prosecution what charge shall be preferred or what witness(es) shall be fielded against him in discharge of the prosecutor’s prosecutorial responsibilities.”<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The Appellant believes the High Court of Minna has no jurisdiction to try the offences contained in the charge before it because the charges before the State High Court are predicate offences to the ones before the Federal High Court Minna and that the monies involved in the counts contained in the charge at the State High Court Minna are not different from the environmental Ecological consultancy project funds which formed the basis of money laundering charge before the Federal High Court. To the Appellant, the Federal legislation on money laundering supersedes the State Legislation on conversion, criminal breach of trust etc. which are all covered by State legislation according to Appellant’s Learned Senior Counsel. He opined that the charges of money laundering already filed against Appellant at the Federal High Court covers these charges.
I am of firm view that the Appellant’s Learned Senior Counsel’s submissions are, with respect, misconceived and clearly overlooked the position of the statute creating the EFCC and decided cases by the Supreme Court firmly establishing that EFCC as the coordinating agency for the enforcement of the

provisions of Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act; and any other law or regulation, relating to economic and financial crimes like criminal code and Penal Code can institute criminal proceedings against any person in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or Attorney General for offences under criminal code and Penal Code. It is not a question of whether Act of National Assembly supersedes that of the State in respect of predicate offences but whether the Defendant can lawfully be arraigned for offences bordering on, conspiracy, criminal Breach of Trust and conversion at the State High Court for breach or violation of Penal Code law or Criminal Code law. There is no doubt that the High Court Minna is also competent to hear and determine the charge in accordance with the law establishing the EFCC. The counts contained in the charge before the High Court of Justice Minna are well within the jurisdiction of lower Court to adjudicate upon under the Penal Code Law. Charge bordering on Money Laundering offences are quite separate and distinct from the offences of criminal Breach of Trust, conversion abetting commission of criminal breach of trust

with respect to funds forming part of Ecological funds meant for Environmental Zone of Niger State contained in the charge before the lower Court against the Appellant and two other persons.
The position of the law has since been firmly settled in numerous decisions of the apex Court in Nigeria. Suffice to refer to some of them viz:
(1) ADAOHA UGO-NGADI V. FRN (2018) NWLR (PART 1620) 29 at 50 F – H to 51 A – C per GALUMJE, JSC who said:
“This Court came to the conclusion that, by virtue of Section 174(1), Section 286(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the Attorney-General of the Federation or any person authorised by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), a Federal Government Agency, can lawfully Initiate or authorize the initiation of criminal proceedings in any Court other than a Court martial in any State of the Federation in respect of offences created by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
Section 19(1) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004 provides that the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory has jurisdiction to try offenders under this

Act. Subsection 3 of Section 19 of the EFCC Act provides as follows:-
“The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court or a High Court of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, as the case may be, shall by order under his hand, designate a Court or judge or such number of Courts or judges as he shall deem appropriate to hear and determine all cases under this Act or other related offences arising under this Act.”
By Section 7(2)(b) and (f) of the same Act, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission shall be the coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provision of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 1995 and any other law or regulation relating to economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal Code and Penal Code. The appellant was arraigned before the Lagos State High Court for offences under the section of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related offences and sections of the Criminal Code which the EFCC is empowered to coordinate the enforcement of their provision.
By the provision of Section 251 (I) of the Constitution, the National Assembly notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in the Constitution conferred additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in respect of criminal matters which jurisdiction is not exclusive. There is nowhere in the Constitution where the jurisdiction of State High Courts in respect of the Federal cause as provided by Section 286(1)(a) has been removed. I am of the firm view that the Lagos State High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge, for which the appellant was arraigned before it.”
(2) OCHONOGOR ALEX V. FRN (2018) NWLR (PART 1618) 228 at 239 A – H to 240 A – B per NWEZE, JSC who said:
“This would appear to be the situation in this case. In FRN V. Okey Nwosu (supra), this Court laid the arguments, such as were canvassed by the appellant’s counsel in this case, to rest. In the said FRN V. Okey Nwosu (supra), this Court dealt with the interface between Sections 251 (1); 251 (3) and 272 of the Constitution in these appetizing words:
In criminal law and the administration of criminal justice, the determination of jurisdiction will be taken in the light of the enabling law setting out the jurisdiction vis-a-vis the charge preferred against the accused

(person). Section 272 of the Constitution is also relevant. The charge before the Court is what determines its jurisdiction.
While Section 251 (1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters in respect of items listed as (a) – (s), Section 251 (3) does not however confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in criminal causes and matters listed in subsection (1). By the use of the phrase ‘the Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction’ can only mean that other Courts apart from the Federal High Court can exercise jurisdiction also in respect of criminal matters relating to matters listed in Section 251 (1). The phrase to the exclusion of any other Court is omitted deliberately…
(FRN V. Okey Nwosu, supra 304, pares. A-D; italics supplied for emphasis)
According to the Court:
Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act, which is ipsisima verba to it, Section 272 of the Constitution. which provide for the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court and the trial Court, respectively, are not self -executing. It is true that the

sections have spelt out instances when the Federal High Court and the trial Court may assume jurisdiction. The provisions however remain dormant until the National Assembly and the Lagos State House of Assembly make laws in their respective areas of competence to create offences by virtue of which the Courts would exercise jurisdiction. The 1999 Constitution in Section 4 (6) vests legislative powers of a State of the Federation in the House of Assembly of the State.
By Subsection 7 of the same section, the Assembly is empowered to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State and any part thereof with respect to any matter not included in the exclusive legislative list and any other matter with respect to which it is empowered in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Thus where as in the instant case the Lagos State House of Assembly competently makes laws creating offences in respect of which Courts in the State may assume jurisdiction, the jurisdiction as vested abides.
The jurisdiction of the trial Court as spelt out under Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution operates

subject to the restriction placed on it by Section 251 (2) and (3) of the same Constitution. The latter subsection vests criminal jurisdiction In the Federal High Court regarding all the items for which the Court is conferred exclusive civil jurisdiction under Section 251 (1).
FRN V. Okey Nwosu supra at 290, paras. C-G).”
(3) IBRAHIM SHEHU SHEMA V. FRN 2018 (PART 1624) 337 at 371 D – H to 375 A – D per BAGE, JSC who held:
“Nigerians have now internalized the reality of the challenges facing the country in the area of anti-corruption and related financial crimes. Our country people, agencies and institutions are now, or must now be, at home with the shift in the paradigm of Impunity to recognize that both the case law and statute provisions recognize the fact that, indeed, the law empowers the EFCC to institute a case in the name of the Attorney General of the Federation. Federal Republic of Nigeria and not necessarily in its name only, and that it could so institute in any Court, State or Federal. This Court has held in several instances that the EFCC is a statutory body created under the laws of Nigeria to investigate and prosecute a

class of criminal offences.
To further buttress my position on this issue, I wish to reiterate the well settled position of this Court In the case. See Nyame V. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344.
In this case, this Court indicated, and very clearly, that there is nothing here that prevents the EFCC from prosecuting offenders in the name of the “Federal Republic of Nigeria” being the agency responsible for co-coordinating the various institutions involved in the fight against money laundering and enforcement of all laws dealing with Economic and financial crimes in the Federal Republic of Nigeria by virtue of Section 1 (2) (c) of the EFCC Act.
The effect of our clear and ambiguous stance in Nyame V. FRN (supra) and which we have no reason to depart from, is that the commission (the EFCC) is the co-coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provisions of any other law or reputation on economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal Code and the Penal Code. The Commission has the power under Section 13(2) of the Act to prosecute offences so long as they are financial crimes. I have not seen what substantial miscarriage of

justice the appellants have suffered by the EFCC prosecuting them for those offences under the name of Federal Republic of Nigeria for crimes they have allegedly committed under Penal Code Law, Cap 96, Laws of Katsina State.
To further amplify that legal authorities clearly support the stand of the trial Judge and lower Court, that the EFCC can institute a case in the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation, and not necessarily in its name only, I refer to the case of Amaechi V. INEC & 2 Ors (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 at 307, paras. E-F this Court, per Oguntade, JSC held –
“The EFCC Is a statutory body created under the laws of Nigeria. Its duties include the investigation and prosecution of a class of criminal offences. In essence, once its investigation has shown prima facie that a person has committed a criminal offence, the duty of EFCC is to have such offender prosecuted in a Court of law…”
There is nothing here that prevents the EFCC from prosecuting such offender in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. After all, by Section 1 (2) (c) of the EFCC Act, the EFCC has the “responsibility of coordinating

the various institutions involved in the fight against money laundering and enforcement of all laws dealing with Economic and Financial Crimes in Nigeria”. i.e. of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In Nyame V. FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344, this Court held at page 403, paras. F-G that:-
“The Commission is the coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provisions of any other law or regulation or economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal Code and the Penal Code. The commission has the Power under Section 13(2) of the Act to prosecute offences so long as they are financial crimes.”
I need to add, at this stage, by re-echoing the voice of this Court Per Ngwuta, S.C. (P.32. paras. E-G) (Dariye V. FRN) that, institution of proceeding against any person before any Court in Nigeria other than a Court martial is not the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney-General of the Federation and/or his counterpart in the State. Section 174 (1) (b) and (c) and Section 211(1)(b) and (c). This becomes more compelling given the provisions of the Act.
I will take a few minutes to quote extensively from the specific

provisions of the EFCC Act, to justify the position of this Court that there are several agencies, bodies and institutions, beyond the Attorney-General of the Federation and/or his counterpart in the State, with powers to prosecute specific offences.
“7(1) That the Commission has power to –
(a) cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person corporate body or organization has committed an offence under this Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes; and
(b) cause investigations to be conducted into the properties of any person if it appears to the Commission that the person’s life style and extent of the properties are not justified by his source of income.
(2) In addition to the powers conferred on the Commission by this Act, the Commission shall be the coordinating agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of:
“(a) The Money Laundering Act 2004; 2003 NO.7. 1995; No. 13
(b) The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 1995;
(c) The Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994, (as amended);
(d) The Banks

and other Financial Institutions Act 1991, as amended and Miscellaneous Offences Act; and
(f) Any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the Criminal Code and Penal Code.
13(1) The General and Assets Investigation Unit shall be charged with responsibilities for –
(a) The prevention and detection of offences in violation of the provisions of this Act;
(b) The arrest and apprehension of economic and financial crime perpetrators;
(c) The investigation of assets and properties of persons arrested for committing any offence under this Act;
(d) The identification and tracing of proceeds and properties involved in any offence under this Act and the forfeiture of such proceeds and properties to the Federal Government; and
(e) Dealing with matters connected with extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters involving economic and financial offences.
(2) The Legal and Prosecution Unit shall be charged with responsibility for –
(a) Prosecuting offenders under this Ac
(b) Supporting the General and Assets Investigation Unit by providing the unit with legal advice and

assistance, wherever it is required;
(c) Conducting such proceedings as may be necessary towards the recovery of any assets or properly forfeited under this Act and
(d) Performing such other legal duties as the Commission may refer to it from time to time.
(3) There shall be appointed for each of the units a principal officer who shall be known by such designation as the commission may determine.
Clearly, it is absolutely impossible to agree less, that the above quoted provisions of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act Cap. E1, LFN, Vol. 5, 2004 empowers the prosecutors in legal and prosecution unit of the EFCC to prosecute any person who commits any of the offences that the Commission is empowered to prosecute under the Act. The lower Court was, therefore, right in my view to have applied the law correctly when it held that the powers and duties of the EFCC as stated under Section 13 (2) allows the Legal and Prosecution Unit of the Commission to prosecute offenders under the Act.
Without prevarications, Section 7(2)(a) empowered the EFCC to enforce any law or regulations relating to Economic and Financial

Crimes, including the Penal Code. It is not in contention that:
“(1) The Attorney-General of Katsina State has donated a flat to the respondent’s agency (the EFCC) to prosecute the appellants pursuant to Section 211 of the Constitution;
(2) By Section 7 (1) the Commission has power to cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed an offence under the Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes;
(3) By Section 7(2), in addition to the powers conferred on the Commission by the Act, the Commission shall be the coordinating Agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of (f) any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the Criminal Code and Penal Code.
(4) By the provisions of Section 13 (2) the Legal and Prosecution Unit shall be charged with responsibility for prosecuting the offenders.”
With those key points, the regime of anti-corruption law in Nigeria is meant to be symbiotically applied, implemented and given effect by both Federal and State agencies. There is much wisdom in so doing. There is a

national revolt by all concerned against corruption, and financial crimes, at all levels of the Courts, including ours as the Supreme Court of the land. Indigenous philosophies of Nigerians support this symbiotic multi-institutional, pronged-approach to the war against corruption and financial infelicities, more appropriately called financial crimes.
As between EFCC Act and Penal Code, or between Federal Government of Nigeria and Katsina State of Nigeria, what matters most, and justifiably so, is that corruption and financial crimes be tracked, investigated, prosecuted and punished. The age-old Indigenous view in Southwest (and perhaps in other parts of Nigeria) is that the “snake of financial crime” be not allowed to escape on account of gender sentiments. It matters not if the ‘monstrous snake’ of corruption and financial crimes biting Nigeria is killed by a man or women; all that matters is the death of the ‘deadly snakes’ of corrupt practices and financial hooliganism daily killing Nigeria and Nigerians.
At this stage, the guilt of the appellants is not yet established. This matter is yet to be tried but has only traveled

the long, tortuous journey of interlocutory appeal to prove or test the law. That is why we must, as a Court of law of last resort, set the law straight. It the intention of the makers of the law, that the EFCC prosecutes financial crimes. To the extent that a State has not, for the time being, established equivalent agency like the EFCC for dealing with Economic and Financial Crimes Commission at the State level, the powers of the EFCC remains extant. This is because the EFCC is vested with powers to co-ordinate and enforce related provisions in the Penal Code, which provisions do not violate any known Law of Katsina State.
The law on the hierarchy of laws in Nigeria, is as stated by Kalgo, JSC (as he then was) in A.-G. Abia State v. A.-G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.763) 264 at page 479, paras. G-H:
“The Constitution is what is called the grundnorm and the fundamental law of the land. All other legislations in the land take their hierarchy from the provisions of the Constitution. By the provisions of the Constitution, the laws made by the National Assembly come next to the Constitution, followed by those made by the House of Assembly of a State.”

Thus, the lower Court was right when it held at page 310 of the record of appeal thus: “Further, the argument that the Criminal Procedure Code Law of Katsina State does not provide for or accommodate the power of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to institute criminal proceedings in the High Court of Katsina State by filing of information cannot change this position. This is because it will mean that the Criminal Procedure Code Law Katsina State is in obvious conflict with the economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act.”
To the extent of the above provisions of the law, it is our considered view that the lower Court applied the law correctly. The law evinces a clear intention that, with or without express delegation from the Attorney General of Katsina State, the EFCC could validly prefer the present charges and prosecute the appellants in the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a common agency of both the Attorney General of the Federation and Attorney General of Katsina State. We agree with the respondent that a community reading of provisions of Sections 15(5) and

211(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended): Sections 6(m), 7(e), 13(2)(a) and (J) and 46 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 and Section 185(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Cap 37, Laws of Katsina State, 1991 gives the EFCC power to do what it sought to do by attempting to prosecute the appellants…
In view of the foregoing, issue one is resolved in favour of the respondent, and we hold that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission possesses the power to institute the present criminal proceedings against the appellants in the High Court of Katsina State by filing of information. (Underlined mine)
(4) FRN V. OKEY NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR (PART 1541) 226 at 304 H TO 305 A – G per OGUNBIYI, JSC who said:
The lower Court in the case at hand, was obliged to consider the nature of the charge preferred against the 1st respondent in determining the question of jurisdiction but it failed to do so. The offence of stealing being alleged against the 1st respondent was created under the law enacted by the Lagos State House of Assembly, the same house could not have conferred jurisdiction on the Federal High Court but only conferred on the

High Court of the State.
The offence of stealing does not fall within items (a) – (s) listed in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. The control of capital issue does not also fall within any of the items specifically listed in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
Assuming that the offence of stealing falls within the Items listed as (a) – (s) in Section 251 that in itself would not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to try criminal cases arising from such items. This is in view of Section 251(3) and the phrase “the Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction.”
By Section 251(3), the Federal High Court shall also have jurisdiction along with other Courts in criminal causes or matters but not an exclusive jurisdiction as was conferred on the Federal High Court in civil matters listed in Subsection 1 of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
The Section 251 (1)(s) of the said Constitution relied upon by the Court of Appeal is inapplicable in the instant case as it is clear from the provision that the Federal High Court can only exercise criminal jurisdiction in an matter where such

jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly. The lower Court relied on that section but did not refer to any Act of the National Assembly which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to try the offence of stealing.
As rightly submitted by the appellant therefore, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were in great error in holding that the High Court of Lagos State had no requisite jurisdiction to try the 1st respondent for the offence of stealing by conversion preferred against him under Section 390(7) of the Criminal Code Laws of Lagos State, 2003. I resolve the said issue also in favour of the appellant.
The 3rd issue is whether the prosecution amounted to subjecting the respondents to double jeopardy and thus constituted on abuse of the Court process.” (Underlined mine)

I have read the proceedings at the lower Court, the Notice and Grounds of Appeal herein, the Appellant’s Brief of Argument and Respondent’s Brief of Argument and I am of the firm view that doctrine of covering the field is not applicable in this case on appeal.

The Appellant also contended that bearing in mind Counts 5, 6 and 7 in the charge before the Federal High Court against the Appellant already encapsulate the offences contained in the Counts charged against Appellant at the trial Court, the Appellant will be placed in double jeopardy. This is not true. I am aware that the provisions of Section 36(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1996 as amended completely prohibits putting an accused or a Defendant in double jeopardy in criminal proceedings. The said Section 36(9) of the CFN 1999 as amended provides:
“36(9) No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court jurisdiction or Tribunal for a Criminal Offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior Court.”
The above provisions of the Constitutions has been considered in the case of FRN V. OKEY NWOSU & ORS (2016) 17 NWLR (PART 1541) 226 at 305 to 306 A – C per OGUNBIYI, JSC who said:
”The concept or rule of double jeopardy is specifically provided for under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution

which provides thus:
“No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court of competent jurisdiction or Tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for an offence having the some ingredients as that offence save upon the order of the superior Court.”
The underlying principle of the foregoing provision is to guide against a situation where an accused would be punished twice for the some offence. It presupposes a situation where an accused would be subjected to double trial for the same offence. There is no suggestion in the instant case that the 1st respondent had been convicted by the Federal High Court. In other words, it is on record that hearing is yet to commence in the substantive case which is still at on embryo stage.”
The same is true in this case. There is no iota of elements of double jeopardy made out by the Appellant in this case. The two issues formulated for determination by the Appellant are resolved against the Appellant.

The Appellant’s appeal is devoid of merit and the Appellant appeal is hereby dismissed in his its entirety.

The Ruling of the High Court of Justice Niger State delivered by HON. JUSTICE A.M. MAYAKI on 11th day of December, 2017 is hereby affirmed.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment just delivered in Court by my learned brother Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA.

All the issues raised in this appeal has been exhaustively dealt with by my brother. I agree with reasoning and the conclusion which I adopt as mine.

This appeal truly is lacking in merit. I too do dismiss it and I abide by the consequential orders therein made.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

OLAJIDE AYODELE SAN, with him, A. O. AYODELE, M. A. AYODELE For Appellant(s)

AKINBORO A. OLUMUYIWA SAN – for 1st Respondent
VERONICA ITOBEKENEN ASUELIMEN – for 3rd Respondent For Respondent(s)