ANI v. STATE
(2020)LCN/14896(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, December 02, 2020
CA/E/70C/2017
Before Our Lordships:
Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal
Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
REV. FR JAMES ANI APPELANT(S)
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO QUASH AN INFORMATION WHERE THERE IS NO DISCLOSURE OF AN OFFENCE AND THE TRIAL AMOUNTS TO ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
It is settled law that the Court has the jurisdiction to quash an information where there is no disclosure of an offence and the trial will amount to abuse of Court’s process. In other words where the prosecution has nothing to offer in support of the offence charged, it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court to allow such an indictment to proceed. See IKOMI VS STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (PT 28) 340.
At this stage where no evidence has been led the authorities are in agreement from FRED EGBE VS STATE (1980) 1 NCR 341 to IKOMI VS STATE (supra) through ABACHA VS STATE (supra) to OHWOVORIOLE VS FRN (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 803) 176 at 187-195 that what the Court should do is as succinctly put by KARIBI-WHYTE JSC in IKOMI VS STATE (supra)at 381 that the Court should examine the depositions in the attached proof of evidence on the basis of which the indictment was filed and where the information discloses the commission of an offence and the deposition supports the indictment, it is not sufficient to quash the indictment because the accused persons may not be convicted on trial. All that is required at this stage is that the evidence on the deposition should support the charge as laid in the information and link the accused persons.
The proof of evidence must disclose a prima facie case, sufficient if believed, to link the accused with the alleged offence and justify a proceeding with the trial. The prima facie case must constitute ground for proceeding.
Where the proof of evidence fails to disclose an offence known to law, it would be quashed. See FRED EGBE VS STATE (supra) and IFEGWU VS FRN (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 842) 113.
Where the proof of evidence although discloses an offence known to law but insufficiently links the accused person with it as to justify his being put on trial in respect thereof, it would also be quashed. See ABACHA VS STATE (supra) and OHWOVORIOLE VS FRN (supra). PER OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Enugu State, Awgu Judicial Division, holden at Awgu, delivered on the 30th June, 2017 by OJI, J.
The Appellant had filed a motion on notice to quash the information filed against him by the Respondent on the following grounds:
a. That the proof of evidence does not disclose any link of the offence charged against the Defendant/Applicant requiring him to stand trial before this Court or any other Court of law in Nigeria.
b. That the Defendant/Applicant committed no offence at all.
c. That the information and proof of evidence are abuse of Court process as the prosecution has nothing to offer against the Defendant/Applicant at this time of arraignment.
d. That the evidence in the information are purely speculative.
The said motion was contested by the Respondent and after taking arguments from the respective counsel, the learned trial Judge gave a considered ruling dismissing the said motion.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this
1
Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 10th July, 2017. At the hearing of the appeal, Chief Nnaji adopted the Appellant’s brief filed on the 5th August, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 6th May, 2020 as well as the Reply brief filed on the 3rd June, 2020 but deemed properly filed and served on the 28th October, 2020 as the arguments of the Appellant in furtherance of his appeal. The Respondent’s brief filed on the 6th May, 2020 and deemed properly filed and served on the same day was adopted by Mr. Ngene, Deputy Director, Ministry of Justice, Enugu State, as the arguments of the Respondent in contesting the appeal.
The Appellant distilled a lone issue for determination thus:
Whether the lower Court was right to refuse the application to quash the charge filed by the Defendant/Appellant when there is no link to him of the offence charged.
The Respondent equally formulated a lone issue for determination framed differently, thus:
Whether the Court below rightly dismissed the application of the Appellant to quash the information and proof of evidence against him having found that same disclosed a prima facie case
2
against the Appellant.
It is evident that the parties are ad idem on the lone issue for determination but for semantic variations. I shall therefore proceed to the arguments.
Chief Nnaji argued for the Appellant that he is entitled to presumption of innocence and should not be put through the rigours of trial on the basis of the attached proof of evidence which failed to disclose any link between him and the alleged offence. He defined what constitutes prima facie case in the circumstances and referred to AJULUCHUKWU VS STATE (2014) 13 NWLR (PT 1425) 641, ABIM VS STATE (2011) 17 NWLR (PT 1275) 1 and AJIDAGBA VS IGP (2008) 9 NWLR (PT 1146) 370.
The learned counsel then outlined the contents of the proof of evidence and submitted that they amount to suspicion which is insufficient to constitute the requisite prima facie case. He referred to UWAZURIKE VS A.G. FEDERATION (2008) 10 NWLR (PT 1096) 444 at 451 and ABACHA VS STATE (2002) 11 NWLR (PT 779) 437 at 450.
He urged the Court to allow the appeal.
Contrariwise, Mr. Ngene submitted for the Respondent that while a person should not be put through the rigours of a trial needlessly, an
3
application to quash a charge would be refused where the proof of evidence establishes a prima facie case against the defendant. He referred to AKALA VS FRN (2014) LPELR-22930(CA).
He equally outlined what constitutes the requisite prima facie case and after setting out the alleged offence and the evidence contained in the attached proof of evidence, submitted that prima facie was made out. He referred to AMUZIE VS STATE (2016) LPELR-41531 (CA).
He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
In the Reply brief, Chief Nnaji reiterated his earlier submissions and urged the Court to hold that the proof of evidence in this instance failed to disclose a prima facie case.
It is settled law that the Court has the jurisdiction to quash an information where there is no disclosure of an offence and the trial will amount to abuse of Court’s process. In other words where the prosecution has nothing to offer in support of the offence charged, it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court to allow such an indictment to proceed. See IKOMI VS STATE (1986) 3 NWLR (PT 28) 340.
At this stage where no evidence has been led the authorities are in
4
agreement from FRED EGBE VS STATE (1980) 1 NCR 341 to IKOMI VS STATE (supra) through ABACHA VS STATE (supra) to OHWOVORIOLE VS FRN (2003) 2 NWLR (PT 803) 176 at 187-195 that what the Court should do is as succinctly put by KARIBI-WHYTE JSC in IKOMI VS STATE (supra)at 381 that the Court should examine the depositions in the attached proof of evidence on the basis of which the indictment was filed and where the information discloses the commission of an offence and the deposition supports the indictment, it is not sufficient to quash the indictment because the accused persons may not be convicted on trial. All that is required at this stage is that the evidence on the deposition should support the charge as laid in the information and link the accused persons.
The proof of evidence must disclose a prima facie case, sufficient if believed, to link the accused with the alleged offence and justify a proceeding with the trial. The prima facie case must constitute ground for proceeding.
Where the proof of evidence fails to disclose an offence known to law, it would be quashed. See FRED EGBE VS STATE (supra) and IFEGWU VS FRN (2003)
5
15 NWLR (PT 842) 113.
Where the proof of evidence although discloses an offence known to law but insufficiently links the accused person with it as to justify his being put on trial in respect thereof, it would also be quashed. See ABACHA VS STATE (supra) and OHWOVORIOLE VS FRN (supra).
The information filed against the Appellant contained the following charge:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
PROMOTING LOCAL WAR punishable under Section 86 of the Criminal Code Cap. 30 Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE:
REV. FR. JAMES ANI on 18th September, 2013 at ImeohiaMmaku in Awgu Judicial Division carried out War against some members of the Nigerian Police Force.
The attached proof of evidence contains statements by the victims who were police officers and drivers said to have been engaged by them in the lawful execution of their official duties. The police officers narrated how they were attacked by a group of people at the instance of the Appellant in his bid to evade arrest. They narrated how various injuries were inflicted on them by their assailants and how they lost valuables in the process. The
6
drivers who drove them to the scene also had horrendous tales to narrate. The Appellant himself gave explanations which tried to deflect the allegations made by the said witnesses but which could only be properly ventilated in a full trial.
The conclusion of the learned trial Judge that a prima facie case has been disclosed in the present instance is unassailable in my view. I therefore resolve the lone issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
It needs pointing out that the accruable benefits to a defendant who successfully quashes the charge against him are extremely minimal. Having not been tried, he can only be discharged without being acquitted which means that he could be arraigned afresh. Braving the challenges of trial may therefore be a much better option, as pursuant to Section 36(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), an acquittal has the possibility of putting the criminal allegation to rest permanently.
In totality therefore, I find no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
The ruling of the trial Court is hereby affirmed.
Furthermore, the trial Court is
7
hereby directed to proceed with the trial of the Appellant without further delay.
There shall be no order as to cost.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading the Judgment of my learned brother JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA before now and he has characteristically dealt with the Issues raised in the Appeal with utmost clarity and resolved them in accordance with decided authorities of the Supreme Court and indeed this Court. I agree therefore with his reasoning and conclusion that the Appeal is unmeritorious and should fail. I too dismiss same.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I agree
8
Appearances:
Chief R. A. Nnaji with him Mr. S. C. Igwe, Mr. C. J. Chukwu and C.C. Okukwu Esq. For Appellant(s)
Mr. T. A. Ngene (Deputy Director, Ministry of Justice, Enugu State For Respondent(s)
