IGWE v. C.O.P ANAMBRA STATE
(2020)LCN/14287(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020
CA/AW/108C/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
REMIGUS IGWE APPELANT(S)
And
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ANAMBRA STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
CONDITIONS TO BE PRESENT BEFORE A TRIAL COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON BASED ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY
It is trite that before a trial Court can convict an accused based on his plea of guilty, the following conditions must be present.
1. That the accused understands the meaning of the charge;
2. That he intends to admit the essential ingredients of the offence i.e that the plea is not ambiguous.
3. That the Court has called the prosecution to supply the facts of the case and that the facts supplied are sufficient to show the guilt of the accused.
4. That the offence to which the accused has pleaded guilty is not a capital offence.
5. That the plea of guilty is not inconsistent with any statement made to the Police by the accused during investigation.
Where all the above conditions are present and fulfilled, the Court shall then record the plea of the accused person as nearly as possible in the words used by him and if satisfied that he intends to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence of which he has pleaded guilty, the Court shall convict him of that offence and pass sentence upon or make an order against him. See DANIEL V. F. R. N (2015) 13 NWLR (PT. 1478) at page 119. PER NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
THE CONTENT OF A CHARGE
It is trite that every charge to which an accused person is called upon to answer must be certain, unambiguous and must state the following.
1. The written law and the section of the written law against which the offence is said to have been committed.
2. Particulars of the date and place the offence was allegedly committed.
3. The person against whom or thing, if any, in respect of which the offence was committed.
4. The name of the accused person.
Section 246 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Anambra State 2010 (ACJL) makes it very clear that for a criminal charge to be labeled ambiguous, will depend on whether the ambiguity was sufficient to mislead the accused person to the extent that he did not know the offence for which he was being tried. The ACJL used the word “time and place”. The charge to which the Appellant pleaded guilty to bears the date of the incident as “the 26th day of April, 2017”.
It is trite that for the defence to succeed on an objection that the charge is defective, the defence must show that the accused was prejudiced by the charge. See MANGAL V. STATE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 279) PG. 108. Also once an offence is known to law, e.g stealing, and clearly disclosed in the charge, that “defect” cannot nullify a conviction. See ESSIEN V. C. O. P (1996) NWLR (PT. 449) PG. 489. PER NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Criminal appeal is against the Judgment of I. U. Ndigwe, J, of the Anambra State High Court Onitsha division delivered on the 30th of April, 2019 wherein the learned trial Judge sitting in his Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the appeal brought by the Appellant in respect of his conviction by a Magistrate Court sitting in Onitsha sentencing him to three years imprisonment without an option of fine for stealing the sum of Five Million, Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand, Fifty Naira. (N5,460,050:00). The learned trial Judge affirmed the judgment of the magistrate Court. This appeal is predicated on that judgment.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:- The Respondent’s case as presented at the High Court was that the Appellant was charged at the said Magistrate Court on the 9th of June, 2017 with stealing the sum of Five Million, Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand, Fifty Naira, (N5,460,050:00)., Property of one Eruchalu Wilson, Director Erusmore International Ltd under Section 353 (12) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 vol. II Revised Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria 1991.
The Appellant pleaded
1
guilty to the charge after it was read over to him in English language and explained to him in Igbo language. The Police prosecutor consequent upon the plea of the Appellant tendered the Appellant’s confessional statement which was admitted and marked Exhibit A.
The learned trial senior Magistrate His worship C. N. Okafor Esq proceeded to deliver Judgment where upon the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to a three year jail term without an option of fine. The learned trial Judge affirmed the judgment of the Magistrate in his judgment.
Aggrieved by that Judgment, the Appellant has exercised his constitutional right of appeal and has appealed to this Court. Learned counsel for the Appellant J. O. Onwujekwe Esq distilled a sole issue for determination thus:
“Whether or not the Court below was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant based on the plea of guilty of the Appellant”.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Toonna Nnabuife Esq, distilled a similar issue but couched differently thus:
“The propriety or otherwise of the affirmation of the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by
2
the Court below predicated on the guilty plea returned by the Appellant”.
The issues distilled by both Counsel are similar though couched differently and can conveniently be compressed into one straight forward issue, it is:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the learned trial Judge was right in affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant at the Magistrate Court based on the plea of guilt by the Appellant.”
Taking the issue he formulated, learned counsel for the Appellant, J. O Onwujekwe Esq contended that it was erroneous of the learned trial Judge to dismiss the Appeal of the Appellant based on his confessional statement Exhibit A.
Counsel argued that the Appellant was not properly arraigned and was tried on an incompetent charge and was punished for an offence that was not defined in a written law. He cited F.R.N. V. ABUBAKAR (2019) 7 NWLR (PT. 1670) PG. 115. etc. He submitted that there was ambiguity in the charge regarding the ownership of the money mentioned Eruchalu Wilson as well as Director Erusmore International Ltd.
He posited that Exhibit A was
3
incomplete as a confessional statement without the Police tendering the investigation report to show that the Appellant was investigated in accordance with the law. Counsel argued further that the Appellant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36(4), 95 (6) A – E of the 1999 Constitution of the Republic of Nigeria (as amended) were not observed by the learned senior Magistrate.
He opined that the Appellant was not represented by counsel at the Magistrate Court and therefore did not appreciate the nature of the charge. He described the trial as perverse and occasioned grave miscarriage of justice on the Appellant counsel for the Appellant also filed a Reply brief on the 17/3/2020.
Reacting to the foregoing, learned counsel for the Respondent Toonna Nnabuife Esq referred to Sections 185(1) (c), 212 and 213 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Anambra State 2010 (ACJL), argued that when a Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to try summarily, detailed processes like the proof of Evidence, Police investigation Report are dispensed with. Counsel submitted that all trials at Magistrate Courts are summarily done to the
4
extent of the Magistrate adjudicating. He cited ABIOLA V. F. R. N.(2015) 7 NWLR (PT. 1457) at 125. Learned counsel expounded the position of the law that an accused can be convicted on the strength of his confessional statement and cited ODUA V. F. R. N. (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 761) at 615. AMACHREE V. NIGERIAN ARMY (2003) 3 NWLR (PT. 807) at 256. He pointed out that in compliance with its summary jurisdiction the learned trial Magistrate ensued proper arraignment. The change was read and explained to the Appellant who pleaded guilty. His confessional statement was then tendered to corroborate his plea deliver its judgment.
It is pertinent at this juncture to point out that the Appellant at the High Court challenged his conviction and sentence based mainly on the following:
a. That charge No MO/414C/2017 was invalid because of the ambiguity existing in the charge as regards the ownership of the money stolen by the Appellant. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that the stolen money was said to belong to Eruchalu Wilson as well as Director Erusmore International Ltd.
b. He also queried the fact that the Appellant was not properly arraigned and
5
was therefore punished for an offence that is not defined in law.
c. He also queried the rationale behind tendering of Exhibit A as a confessional statement without the Police tending the Police investigation report to show that the Appellant was investigated properly.
Counsel for the Appellant also challenged the judgment of the High Court in his appeal to this Court based mainly on the above issues. It is pertinent to state at this juncture that the Magistrate Court whose judgment was challenged at the High Court that consequently gave rise to this appeal is a Court of summary trial and so is clothed with the jurisdiction to try cases summarily. In such instance, detailed processes and proof of evidence are dispensed with, see Sections 185(1) (c) 212 and 213 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Anambra State 2010.
Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act Cap C41 Laws of the Federation 2004 states that if an accused pleads guilty to an offence with which he is charged, the Court shall record his plea as nearly as possible in the words used by him and if satisfied that he intended to admit the truth of all the essentials of the
6
offence of which he has pleaded guilty, the Court shall accordingly convict him of the offence and pass sentence upon or make an order against him, see OGBOH V. F. R. N. (2002) 10 NWLR (PT. 774) PG. 21. The trial Court in the extant case being the Magistrate Court, its summary jurisdiction can be exercised and invoked in any of the following ways; where the accused pleads guilty and even where the accused pleads not guilty. Summary Judgment is a procedure available for quick and expeditious disposition and dispensation of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to material facts.
It is trite that before a trial Court can convict an accused based on his plea of guilty, the following conditions must be present.
1. That the accused understands the meaning of the charge;
2. That he intends to admit the essential ingredients of the offence i.e that the plea is not ambiguous.
3. That the Court has called the prosecution to supply the facts of the case and that the facts supplied are sufficient to show the guilt of the accused.
4. That the offence to which the accused has pleaded guilty is not a capital offence.
7
- That the plea of guilty is not inconsistent with any statement made to the Police by the accused during investigation.
Where all the above conditions are present and fulfilled, the Court shall then record the plea of the accused person as nearly as possible in the words used by him and if satisfied that he intends to admit the truth of all the essentials of the offence of which he has pleaded guilty, the Court shall convict him of that offence and pass sentence upon or make an order against him. See DANIEL V. F. R. N (2015) 13 NWLR (PT. 1478) at page 119.
A look at page 4 of the Record of Appeal shows clearly that the Appellant voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge at the Magistrate Court and that the charge was read and explained to him in Igbo language before he pleaded guilty. He also identified his statement to the Police Exhibit A. A look at the said statement of the Appellant at pages 39 – 42 of the Record of Appeal shows that the Appellant gave a detailed account of how he made away with the money. Exhibit A is clearly a confessional statement. The learned trial Magistrate was well within the law when he proceeded to convict and sentence
8
the Appellant. See page 5 of the Record of Appeal.
It is trite that every charge to which an accused person is called upon to answer must be certain, unambiguous and must state the following.
1. The written law and the section of the written law against which the offence is said to have been committed.
2. Particulars of the date and place the offence was allegedly committed.
3. The person against whom or thing, if any, in respect of which the offence was committed.
4. The name of the accused person.
Section 246 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Anambra State 2010 (ACJL) makes it very clear that for a criminal charge to be labeled ambiguous, will depend on whether the ambiguity was sufficient to mislead the accused person to the extent that he did not know the offence for which he was being tried. The ACJL used the word “time and place”. The charge to which the Appellant pleaded guilty to bears the date of the incident as “the 26th day of April, 2017”.
It is trite that for the defence to succeed on an objection that the charge is defective, the defence must show that the accused was
9
prejudiced by the charge. See MANGAL V. STATE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 279) PG. 108. Also once an offence is known to law, e.g stealing, and clearly disclosed in the charge, that “defect” cannot nullify a conviction. See ESSIEN V. C. O. P (1996) NWLR (PT. 449) PG. 489. Counsel for the Appellant made heavy weather that there was ambiguity in respect of ownership of the stolen money i.e five Million, Four hundred and sixty thousand, fifty Naira. A look at the charge shows that the name of the owner was stated as “Eruchalu Wilson”, the addition “Director Erumore International Limited” is nothing but supplusage and the Appellant was in no way prejudiced or confused as to the owner of the stolen money.
Once an accused is charged and the charge is unambiguous, the charge read and explained to the accused in the language he understood and his plea recorded properly, the arraignment is said to be valid. Page 4 and 5 of the Record of Appeal show that the senior Magistrate complied with all these. The arraignment of the Appellant was therefore valid. The learned trial Judge was therefore well within the law when he affirmed the
10
Judgment of the trial senior Magistrate. The argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that the arraignment of the Appellant, the conviction and sentence were not valid and therefore perverse was in my view puerile.
In dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the learned senior Magistrate, the learned trial Judge hard these to say.
“The charge was valid and proper before the lower Court and is devoid of any form of defect. The Appellant has not shown any material reason to warrant this Court to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court which convicted him after his guilt was explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court which also examined his demeanor having been charged and arraigned under a valid charge and under an existing law as the record of appeal clearly shows.”
The above statement is impeccable and sound. In the same vein, I have no reason or justification to interfere with the above decision as the learned trial Judge was well within the law.
In the premise, the sole issue is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. This appeal is bereft of
11
merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety. The Judgment of the Onitsha Division of the Anambra State High Court sitting in its Appellate jurisdiction in Appeal No. 0/4CA/2017 delivered on the 30th of April, 2019 by I. U. Ndigwe J, is hereby affirmed.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment delivered by my brother CHIOMA NWOSU-IHEME, (Ph. D) JCA.
I agree with her reasoning and conclusion.
I also affirm the judgment of the Court below in Appeal No. 0/4CA/2017 delivered on the 30th of April 2019.
The Appeal is dismissed by me.
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.: I have read a draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Nwosu-Iheme, J.C.A.
I agree with and adopt the decision reached by my learned brother in the lead judgment that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment by the lower Court delivered on 30th April, 2019 in Appeal No. 0/4CA/2017 is also affirmed by me.
12
Appearances:
O. Onwujekwe, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Nnabuife, Esq. Principal Senior Counsel (Ministry of Justices) Anambra State For Respondent(s)