ALHAJI MOROUF OMOLAJA AJISEGIRI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC Of NIGERIA
(2010)LCN/3765(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 5th day of May, 2010
CA/I/278/06
RATIO
INTERPRETATION: PRINCIPLE GUIDING INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
The principle guiding interpretation of statutes is that words used must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Where the words are precise and unambiguous, no more is needed to expound the words in their natural and ordinary sense. It is said that the words of the statute in such a case best declare the intention of the lawmaker. See IBRAHIM VS. BARDE (1996) 9 NWLR (174) 513 at 571 B-C; AHMED VS. KASSIM (1958) SC NLR 58. PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A
JUSTICES
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMAUWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALHAJI MOROUF OMOLAJA AJISEGIRI Appellant(s)
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Of NIGERIA Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court, Abeokuta, delivered by O. A. Ogundepo, J. on the 30th day of October, 2006 in Charge No. ABJ/ICPC/1/05, in which the Appellant was the 1st accused. The Respondent was the complainant, in a two count charge of Conspiracy to commit an offence contrary to Section 26(1)(c) and punishable under Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and spending money allocated for printing of books on Ileya gifts contrary to and punishable under Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
At the conclusion of hearing, the then 2nd accused was discharged and acquitted while the Appellant was found guilty and convicted accordingly.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant’s original Notice of Appeal dated 30/11/06 was filed on 11/12/06, on the order of this court of 8/4/08, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing three Grounds of Appeal, on 10/4/08, from which the Appellant raised two (2) issues for the determination of this appeal. The issues are as follows:-
(1) Whether the lower court was right when it Convicted the Appellant having found that the Appellant did not enrich himself or take any benefit from the transaction of the Ileya gifts.
(ii) Whether the evidence led by the Respondent at the lower court, discloses any gum against the Appellant as against the provisions of Section 22(5) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offence Act.
The Respondent also raised two (2) issues for determination as follows (i) Whether from the totality of evidence adduced by the Respondent was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he found the Appellant guilty and convicted for contravening the provision of Section 22(5) of the Act.
At the hearing of the Appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant A. M. Uthman Esq., adopted and relied upon his brief of argument dated and filed on 9/2/09 deemed as filed on 24/9/09 in which his two issues were argued.
In arguing his first issue, it was submitted that the trial court had no reason to have convicted the Appellant, that for a conviction to be justified, every ingredient which constitutes the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with reference to the evidence of the PW1 (pages 31 and 38 of the records), PW2 (page 40 of the records) and PW4 (page 43 of the records) contended that the Respondent failed to establish any guilt of the Appellant based on the evidence led in the lower court. Reliance was placed on the case of EDE V. F.R.N. (2000) 18 W.R.N. (Pt.17).AT PAGE 25 (Paragraphs 5 – 10).
On proof beyond reasonable doubt, we were referred to the case of ONYIA v. STATE (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt.991) P. 278 AT PAGE 293, Paragraphs B – C and PAGES 293 – 294 H – B. It was argued that the trial Judge (page 138 of the record) admitted in his judgment that the evidence led by the Respondent did not establish any guilt against the Appellant. We were urged to set aside the conviction of the Appellant on the basis that there was no credible evidence to sustain the conviction; reference was made to the case of LAMBERT V. NIGERIAN NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) PAGE 527 AT PAGE 548, Paragraph B.
We were urged to set aside the judgment of the lower court in favour of the Appellant; reliance was placed on the case of QUEEN V. OGODO (1961) N.S.C.C. (VOL 2) 311.
On the Appellant’s second issue, it was submitted that from the evidence led by the Prosecution witnesses and as agreed in the judgment of the lower court due process was followed for the approval of the N260, 000.00 for Ileya gifts.
It was contended that the money for the Ileya gifts was a loan to the Local Government by Mr. Justus Ademuyiwa Onabanjo who testified as PW6 (pages 46-27 of the records). In relying on the case of ADAVA &. ANOTHER V. THE STATE (2006) 3 SCM 1 AT 7, it was argued that one of the ingredients of the offence has not been proved and that entitled the Appellant to an acquittal. Also, relied upon was the case of ODEN v. F.R.N. (2005)1 Nee PAGE 306 AT 323. We were once again on the second issue, urged to set aside the judgment of the trial court as the conviction was not justified.
In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent relied on her brief of argument dated 18/1/10, filed on 20/1/10, deemed as properly filed on 25/1/10. Learned counsel adopted and relied on the said brief.
The Respondent’s two issues were argued together and also answered those formulated by the Appellant. It was submitted in the brief of argument that the elements of the offence in Section 22(5) of the Act are as follows:
(a) The accused must be a public officer
(b) The accused must transfer or spend any sum allocated for a particular project or service, on another project or service.
In proof of the first element, we were referred to Section 2 of the Act which defines a public officer. Further, that the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and that of DW1 to DW2 and the statements of the Appellant established that the Appellant was the Chairman, Abeokuta North Local Government, therefore, a public officer and that the first element was proved.
On the second element, we were referred to Exhibits ‘I’ (should be ‘H’), minutes of the meeting where approval was given for N2,000,000.00 to be used to purchase exercise books, ‘K’, ‘N’ and ‘I’ (There was no Exhibit ‘I’ from the list of Exhibits in the records,as it should be ‘Q’) to show that the sum of N2 Million was approved and released by the Local Government for the printing of exercise books. Further, that from Exhibit ‘O’ (Receipt of N1,740, 000.00 issued to the Local Government by the Printer) and the evidence of PW1, 5 and 6 only the above sum was paid to the printer out of the N2 million approved. It was submitted that it was the Appellant that directed that the sum of N260, 000.00 be used for Ileya gifts and not the Executive Council of the Local Government, reference was once again made to Exhibit ‘J’. It was contended that the second ingredient of the offence was proved.
It was argued that Section 22(5) of the Act requires to be proved the transferring or spending of money allocated for a particular project on another, which the Respondent proved. Further, that the fact that the sum of N260, 000.00 was approved by the Executive Council for Ileya gifts and same budgeted for does not constitute an offence under Section 22(5) of the Act. Also that the payment voucher was prepared according to the regular process of the Local Government is not an offence.
It was contended that the Respondent having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act, the lower court was right to have convicted the Appellant; we were urged to uphold the judgment of the trial court.
The learned Respondent’s counsel gave her interpretation of the trial Judge’s view at page 138 of the records to mean that the Appellant did not enrich himself or take any benefit from the transaction contrary to the argument of learned counsel to the Appellant who argued that the learned trial Judge held that the Respondent did not establish the guilt of the Appellant.
It was submitted that it is immaterial whether the Appellant benefited or not from the money spent, since it is not an element of the offence, that what is important is that the Appellant spent money meant for the printing of exercise books on Ileya gifts.
Further, that the offence under Section 22(5) of the Act is a strict liability offence and mens rea is not an ingredient of the section, reliance was placed on the case of NWALI V. THE STATE (1991) 1 NSCC PAGE 470, Paragraph 40.
It was submitted that all the ingredients of the offence were proved contrary to the submissions of the learned Appellant’s counsel. We were urged to dismiss the Appeal.
The two issues distilled for determination from the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal by each of the parties respectively, are basically the same but differently couched. The issues can be summed up as a sale issue thus:
Whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as to warrant the conviction of the Appellant for contravening the provisions in Section 22(5) of the Independent Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act.
For ease of reference I will reproduce S. 22(5) of the Act Section 22(5) of the Act provides as follows:
Any public officer who transfers or spends any sum allocated for a particular project or service, on another project or service, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and on conviction be liable to one (1) year imprisonment or fine of Fifty Thousand Naira.
From the above provision what needs to be proved is that the Appellant was a public officer and shown to have transferred or spent any sum allocated for a particular project or service, on another project or service.
Section 2 of the Act which defines a public officer provides as follows:-
2. A person employed or engaged in any capacity in public service of the Federation, State or Local Government public corporations or private company wholly or jointly floated by any government or its agency including the subsidiary of any such company whether located within or outside Nigeria and includes judicial officers serving in Magistrate, Area Customary Courts or Tribunals.
(Underlining mine for emphasis)
As to whether the Appellant was a public officer is not in doubt and not disputed by the parties that he was the Chairman, Abeokuta North Local Government, considering also the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and DW1 to DW2.
The Respondent no doubt was a public officer under the Above provision.
I will at this juncture examine the Exhibits more closely. The learned Appellant’s counsel had argued and with reference to the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 that as per Exhibit it was in the Executive Council meeting that the sum of N260, 000.00 was approved for Ileya gifts. Also that from Exhibit tendered through PW4, due process was followed in raising the voucher and the Ileya gifts budgeted for.
On the other hand, Exhibit clearly shows that approval was given for the sum of N2,000,000.00 to be used to purchase books, also Exhibit the payment voucher dated 26/2/10 shows that the above sum is for the provision of exercise books, big notes and other writing materials (biro, pencils, Ruler). In Exhibit under the main heading: ‘Description of Payment’ reads thus:
Being part payment for the provision of Exercise Books/Big Notes and other writing materials (Biro/Pencil and Ruler) for distribution to Primary School Pupils within the Local Government Area vide Exco approval of Friday 23rd February, 2001.
In the same Exhibit under the sub-head ‘CERTIFICATE’ states:
I certify on honour that this fund would be spent for the provision of above stated materials.
The approval for the payment according to Exhibit was as per the Exco approval of 23/2/01.
Exhibit is the letter written to the supplier that N2 Million had been approved to be released to him as part payment to enable him deliver the materials. With Exhibit Q, the above sum was included amongst others, as approved to be released to the Local Government by Wema Bank (item No. 20 in Exhibit’Q.
In respect of Exhibit O (a receipt dated 8/3/01) clearly shows that only the sum of m,740,000.00 was paid to the Printer/Supplier of the books and writing materials. This was confirmed by the evidence of PW1, 5 and 6, therefore the Appellant is not contesting that the above amount only was paid to the printer and did not claim to have paid the printer fully.
No doubt, from Exhibit J, the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of 29/8/01, N260, 000.00 was approved for Ileya gifts, Exhibit Mof 20/6/01 also gave a breakdown of how the N260, 000.00 was to be spent on the gifts.
The real issue is not whether the approval was made for the sum of N2 Million following due process, in the same manner that due process was followed in the approval, release and payment of the N260, 000.00 spent on the gifts as argued by learned counsel to the Appellant. The crux of the offence for which the Appellant was charged in the lower court, under Section 22(5) of the Act is the spending of any sum allocated for a particular project or service on another project, or service-:
‘The approval and the breakdown of how the sum of N260,000.00 was spent is not an offence under the Act.
From the evidence adduced by the PW1, 2 and 6, as well as Exhibit J it is clear that the Appellant directed that the sum of N260,000.00 approved for the Ileya gifts be paid from the N2 Million Naira approved specifically for the supply of exercise books and other writing materials.
The issue here is not whether the giving or purchase of Ileya gifts was approved, proper or due process followed or not but the mere fact that the money approved for the purchase of books and other writing materials was used for the Ileya gifts contrary to the provisions of Section 22(5). The Appellant did not deny having done so but, insisted that it was with the approval of the Executive Council and that it was a loan to the Local Government.
At this point, it is necessary to reproduce part of Exhibit J heavily relied upon by both parties. Page 8 paragraphs 3.14.4 and 3.14.5 reads thus:-
3. 14.4 The Executive Committee unanimously approved the sum of Two Hundred and sixty thousand Naira only.
3.14.5 The Chairman however, advised the Supervisor for Education, Information and Social Services to loan the Local Government from the amount released to his department on the procurement of exercise books and other writing materials pending the time the next allocation will be released.
(Underlining mine for emphasis)
There is no problem with the approval of the sum of N260, 000.00 for the Ileya gifts, but with the Appellant’s advice that money meant for exercise books be used to buy the gifts. Even though, it was alleged to be a loan to the Local Government, it is immaterial. Advise as appears in Exhibit ‘J” is a directive which the then second accused in the court below obeyed (i.e. Supervisor for Education, Information and Social Services).
The provision of Section 22(5) of the Act is plain and unambiguous and nothing outside the intendment of the legislators can be read into it by the courts. The duty of the Court is limited to interpretation. There were no exceptions given, for instance, as the Appellant has tried to make out, that money for one thing could be used for another, if a loan, to be spent on that other thing. Such interpretation or acceptance would give room for inapplicability of the above section, render it ineffective and also give room for public officers to use funds meant for one thing for another by continuously ‘borrowing’ or granting of inter-departmental ‘loans’ for one thing or the other without funds being used for what they are meant for, that way money meant for particular projects would never be utilized for those projects.
There is nothing wrong with the approval for Ileya gifts or the amount spent. There is also no urgency in buying the gifts at that particular time with the money approved and released for books. The purchase of the gifts could have waited until the Local Government could buy the gifts with the funds meant for such public relations gifts. Time for giving any gift does not run out as gifts whatever their nature, can be given at any time.
There was no need for the deductions made from the N2 Million approved for books for the purchase of the Ileya gifts in the guise of ‘loan’- “As I stated earlier in this judgment, it amounts to spending of money meant for a particular project on another project under Section 22(5) and I so hold”.
It is clear that it was the Appellant that advised that the money be spent from the approval and release for the supply of exercise books; this has been well established by the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 138 of the Evidence Act contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel to the Appellant. Even though the provision may seem a bit bare, it is for now as it is, and must be complied with, that is the law.
At page 138 of the records, referred to by the learned counsel to the Appellant, the learned trial Judge had expressed the view thus:-
I found in the course of the judgment that from the evidence before the court the 1st accused person did not enrich himself or take any benefit from the transaction.
The learned Appellant’s counsel had argued that the learned trial judge by holding that the Appellant did not enrich himself or take any benefit from the transaction, the Respondent had not established the guilt of the Appellant and that it was an admission by the learned trial Judge that the Respondent did not prove the guilt of the Appellant and ought not to have convicted him.
The provision of the Act under which the Appellant was charged is clear and specific and as rightly argued by the learned Respondent’s counsel, a strict liability offence. Section 22(5) did not provide that the accused must have enriched himself or benefited from the transaction of transferring money for one project to another. All that was required, which has been proved, is the transferring or ‘spending of money allocated for a particular project to another’, which the Appellant did. The learned trial Judge was therefore right to have convicted the appellant irrespective of the above view or observation.
A bit still on this issue of borrowing or ‘loan’, the learned counsel to the Appellant hammered on the fact that the amount spent on the gifts was a loan to the Local Government and referred to the evidence of PW6 (pages 46 – 47 of the printed records) who gave evidence that he was aware that the sum of N260, 000.00 would be borrowed from the N2 Million approved for him the printer and that the loan would be paid back to which he consented to. It is immaterial that the beneficial of the approved sum for a particular project agreed to lend part of his approval to the Local Government; it does not negate the committal of the offence under Section 22(5) of the Act and cannot exonerate the Appellant in this case.
All the ingredients for the offence under Section 22(5) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act were proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant, and I hold that the learned trial Judge was right and justified to have convicted the Appellant.
The judgment of the learned trial Judge is unassailable and will not be tampered with by this court.
In the prevailing circumstances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Judge, O. A. Ogundepo, J. of the Ogun State High Court delivered on the 30th day of October, 2006 is hereby affirmed.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, C. N. UWA JCA just delivered. His Lordship has painstakingly considered and resolved the sole issue in contention in this appeal. I agree entirely with his reasoning and conclusion.
The principle guiding interpretation of statutes is that words used must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Where the words are precise and unambiguous, no more is needed to expound the words in their natural and ordinary sense. It is said that the words of the statute in such a case best declare the intention of the lawmaker. See IBRAHIM VS. BARDE (1996) 9 NWLR (174) 513 at 571 B-C; AHMED VS. KASSIM (1958) SC NLR 58.
Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practice and other Related Offences Act, 2000 under which the appellant was charged provides:-
‘any public officer who transfer or spends any sum allocated for a particular project or service on another project or service, shall be guilty of an offence, under this Act and on conviction be liable to one (1) year imprisonment or fine of fifty thousand Naira.
The words are clear and unambiguous. The respondent proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant being the Chairman of Abeokuta North Local Government was a public officer within the meaning of section 2 of the Act and that he spent the sum of N260, 000.00 out of the sum of N2, 000, 000.00 approved for books for the Local Government on Ileya Gifts.
The section does not contain any exception which would absolve the accused of guilt where it is shown that he did not personally benefit from the transaction or where it is shown that the money was a loan and he had every intention of returning it. In other words the motive of the accused is irrelevant once it is proved that his act was unlawful. See: NWALI VS. THE STATE (1991) 1 NSCC 470 at 477 lines 39-42. Laws are enacted for the benefit of society at large and to prevent certain mischief.
Section 22(5) of the Corrupt Practices Act is meant to deter any public officer from misappropriating in any form funds meant for a particular project by diverting it to another project.
Whatever deficiencies there might be in the law the duty of the court is to interpret and apply it as it is. The court is not permitted to distort its meaning in order to make it conform with its own views of sound social policy. See ADEWUNMI V. A. G. EKITI STATE &. OR5 (2002) 1 SC NJ 29 at 50; A. G. FEDERATION V. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD. (1999) 9 NWLR (618) 187 at 264.
In the instant case, Exhibit .J clearly showed that it was the appellant who advised the Executive Council of the Local Government that the sum of N260, 000.00 be deducted from the N2, 000, 000.00 approved for the book project, as a loan for the purchase of Ileya Gifts. If such acts are condoned, there would be nothing to prevent a further loan being taken from the balance for another project. At the end of the day, the laudable project of providing books for the Local Government would have been defeated. The judgment of the lower court based on a proper evaluation of the evidence before it and sound legal principles cannot be faulted.
For these and the more detailed reasons advanced in the lead judgment, I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and fine imposed on the appellant by the High Court of Ogun State, sitting at Abeokuta per Ogundepo J. on 30/10/2006.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read the draft of the Judgment of my learned brother C. N. Uwa J. C. A. I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is totally devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Appearances
A.M. UthmanFor Appellant
AND
Peace Osimiry (Miss) with O.G. Iwuagwu Esq.For Respondent
