ORJI UZOR KALU v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS
(2019)LCN/13150(CA)
In The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2019
CA/L/1061C/2018
RATIO
NO CASE TO ANSWER: WHAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ACCEPT A NO CASE SUBMISSION OR NOT
The legislation is settled that within the willpower of whether or not or to not uphold a submission of a no case to reply made by an accused particular person on the shut of the prosecutions proof in a trial, all that’s required is for a Courtroom; whether or not trial or appellate, to have a look at the totality of the proof adduced by the prosecution and see if, cheap and ample legally admissible proof which reveals some connection, hyperlink, relation or nexus between the accused particular person and the details which represent the fee of the offence(s) he was charged with. At this stage, the Courtroom shouldn’t be involved with whether or not the proof adduced towards an accused particular person is ample and of such high quality and probative worth to fulfill or fulfill the usual of proof past cheap doubt, however merely to seek out out whether or not the proof adduced by the prosecution discloses a connection between the accused particular person and the fee of the offence(s) such that some explanations from him are mandatory within the absence of which, the proof can fairly, if believed, help his conviction for the offence(s) he’s cost for. Analysis or evaluation of the probative worth, the efficiency or cogency of the proof for the aim of the requirement of proof of the offence(s) past cheap doubt wouldn’t come up at this stage, however would solely change into mandatory when proof was adduced by each the prosecution and the accused particular person and which was subjected to and examined below cross-examination for its credibility. The right strategy subsequently is to not contemplate whether or not every and the entire important elements of the offence(s) an accused was charged was/had been proved past cheap doubt on the stage of a ruling on a no-case submission, however to contemplate if the proof adduced by the prosecution reveals a nexus between an accused particular person and a few of the details which represent the important or important elements of the offence(s) he was charged for in respect of which explanations are fairly anticipated from him. In any case, as proven within the judicial authorities cited by Counsel above, by a no-case submission, an accused is solely saying that the proof adduced towards him by the prosecution has not made out or established a prima facie case towards him and so shouldn’t be made to face the ordeal of defending himself within the circumstances of the case, since there’s a constitutional assure of innocence in his favour. He says, by a no case submission, that from the proof adduced by the prosecution, there isn’t any legally admissible proof on which an inexpensive Courtroom or tribunal might convict him for the offence(s) he was charged with, even when believed, within the absence of explanations from him.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
PRIMA FACIE CASE: DEFINITION
Merely put, a prima facie case means; on the very fact of it, at first sight or on the primary look from first disclosure. It additionally means a truth which seems on its face, true until proven by some subsequent clarification(s) to be in any other case or disproved by some proof of different truth(s). See usually, Ajidagba v. IGP (1958) Three FSC, 5; Ohuka v. State (1988) Four NWLR (86) 36; Onagoruwa v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (303) 49 @ 82; A.G. Anambra State v. Nwobodo (1992) 7 NWLR (256) 711; R. v. Ogucha (1959) SCNLR 154; Abacha v. State (2002) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 1, (2002) 11 NWLR (779) 437; Ubanatu v. COP (supra); Ikomi v. State (1986) Three NWLR (28) 340; Agbo v. State (2013) 11 NWLR (1365) 377; Fagoriola v. FRN (2013) 17 NWLR (1383) 322.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
Justices
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
Textual content
ORJI UZOR KALUAppellant(s)
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. JONES UDEOGU
3. SLOK NIGERIA LIMITED Respondent
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): The Appellant was arraigned by the first Respondent earlier than the Federal Excessive Courtroom, Lagos (Decrease Courtroom), together with the 2nd and third Respondents and tried on a thirty-nine (39) Counts 2nd Additional Amended cost No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07 filed on 16th July, 2018 for offences below the Cash Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004 and the Prison Code Act, 1990.
On the shut of the case by the prosecution, the Appellant made a no case submission which was over-ruled by the Decrease Courtroom in a Ruling dated 31st July, 2018 and so was referred to as upon to enter his defence to the offences he was charged for. This attraction arises from the choice by the Decrease Courtroom to dismiss the no-case submission and is premised on two (2) grounds contained on the Discover of Enchantment dated the first and filed on the 2nd August, 2018 from which two points are submitted for determination by the Courtroom within the Appellants temporary filed on fifth December, 2018.
They’re as follows: -??1. Was the realized trial Decide proper when he held that the Appellant has a case to reply however the truth that
1
the proof adduced by the first Respondents witnesses had no nexus with the Appellant and didn’t make out a prima facie case towards the Appellant? (Culled from Floor 1)
ll. Was the realized trial Decide proper when he held that Reveals B1-B28; B34; J; L;N1-N15; P1-P34;T8 and U linked the Appellant with the offences charged and thereby required the Appellant to make some explanations by the use of getting into into his defence? (Culled from Floor 2)
Within the 1st Respondens temporary filed on the first February, 2019, deemed on seventh February, 2019, a sole difficulty is claimed to come up for willpower by the Courtroom, as follows:WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS NOT RIGHT IN OVER-RULING THE NO CASE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAVING REGARDS TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION BEFORE IT
The 2nd and third Respondents; who’re Appellants in Appeals No. CA/L/1064C/2018 and CA/L/1043/2018, respectively, towards the identical Ruling by the Decrease Courtroom, didn’t file briefs on this attraction however the Appellant filed a
2
Reply temporary on the sixth February 2019, deemed on seventh February, 2019, in response to the first Respondents temporary. The only real difficulty formulated within the 1st Respondents temporary is apt and encompasses the 2 (2) points raised within the Appellants temporary. I might contemplate the Appellants points collectively.
APPELLANS SUBMISSIONS:
It’s submitted that the first Respondent woefully failed to determine a prima facie case towards the Appellant as the whole proof led earlier than the Decrease Courtroom bore no relationship in any way with the fees towards the Appellant and there was no hyperlink or nexus proven between the Appellant and the offences charged besides that he was, on the materials time, the Governor of Abia State. Sections 302 and 303 of the Administration of Prison Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) had been set out and it’s stated, counting on inter alia, Suberu v. State (2010) Eight NWLR (1197) 586 @ 601, {that a} no-case to reply is made by an accused particular person and upheld by a trial Courtroom if on the finish or shut of the prosecutions proof: –
(1) When there was no proof connecting the accused particular person with the alleged offence(s).
3
(2) When the proof adduced by the first Respondent has been so discredited on account of cross-examination or is manifestly unreliable that no cheap Tribunal might safely convict on it.
The above is as pronounced by this Courtroom in Ibeziako vs. C.O.P. (supra) at web page 473. A no case submission solely means that there’s nothing within the proof adduced by the first Respondent that might persuade the Courtroom to compel the accused to place up his defence.
The case of Ubanatu v. C.O.P. (2000) 2 NWLR (643) 175 was referred to for the definition of a prima facie case and it’s contended that the proof adduced on the offences in Counts 1-10 of the cost towards the Appellant failed to understand that the third Respondent is a restricted legal responsibility firm with distinct authorized character from the Appellant and didn’t present any monetary transaction between the 2 of them which was procured, instigated, contrived or led to by the Appellant from the treasury of the Abia State Authorities. Additionally, there isn’t a proof that Appellant instructed the 2nd Respondent to obtain funds from the Abia State Authorities to be paid into the accounts of the
4
third Respondent or that any cash was paid from the Abia State Treasury into the third Respondents account. It is usually the case of the Appellant that the proof adduced by the first Respondent didn’t present and show any mens rea or responsible data required for proof of the offences in Counts 1-10, which aren’t strict legal responsibility offences. In additional argument, realized Counsel stated that there have been no eye witnesses to any of the offences towards the Appellant and there was no legally admissible proof or nexus linking him with the fee of the offences.
On offences in Counts 21-33, it’s argued that the proof positioned earlier than the Decrease Courtroom didn’t present any overt and even covert acts of the Appellant in furtherance of concealment or disguising the real nature, origin, location, disposition, motion or possession of the sources or funds from the Abia State Authorities Treasury, to which he was not a signatory, as admitted below cross-examination. In accordance with Counsel, the first Respondents case relies on a cocktail of hypothesis, supposition, guesswork and suspicion and that no prima facie case was made out towards the Appellant to require him
5
to enter right into a defence. Arguments had been then made on the burden and customary of proof in prison circumstances as offered for below the Proof Act, 2011 and the presumption of innocence below Part 36(5) of the 1999 Structure (as altered).
Related arguments had been made on Depend 34 for the offence of conspiracy and it’s contended that there was no proof of the important parts of conspiracy between the Appellant and the individuals stated to be at massive, citing Nwankwo v. FRN (2003) Four NWLR (809) 1 @ 37 and Aituma v. State (2007 5 NWLR (1028) 466. The Decrease Courtroom was additionally stated to have erred in holding that Reveals B128, 34, J,L, N1-15, P1-P34, T8 and U linked the Appellant with the offences charged as none of them reveals that the Appellant has any hyperlink with the transactions therein. As well as, there’s stated to be contradiction between Reveals H and L which cancelled one another, thereby creating doubt within the case which in flip quantities to lack of proof past cheap doubt on the authority of Asariyu v. State (1987) 11-12 SCNJ, 125; Egboghonome v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (306) 383 and Archibong v. State (2006) ALLFWLR (309) 1380, amongst different circumstances.
6
The Courtroom is urged, in conclusion, to permit the attraction for the next causes: -1. There was no direct eyewitness testimony of any kind in any way linking the Appellant to any of the fees towards him.
2. There was additionally no circumstantial proof pointing irresistibly to a prima facie case towards the Appellant.
3. The realized trial Decide erroneously sought to make the Appellant to show his innocence within the face of the need of proof by the first Respondent.
4. That 1st Respondents case had been demolished below cross-examination.
1ST RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS:
It’s submitted that the proof adduced by the first Respondent towards the Appellant is overwhelming and reveals how big sums of cash belonging to the Abia State Authorities had been transformed into money and used to acquire financial institution drafts which ended up within the accounts of the third Respondent which is wholly owned by the Appellant. State of affairs when a no-case to reply will be made and upheld, as offered for in Sections 302 and 303 of the Administration of Prison Justice Act had been set out and it’s argued that documentary proof tendered by the
7
prosecution reveals the modus operandi and the way cash was paid from the Abia Authorities Home Accounts, into the accounts of the third Respondent by 2nd Respondent. Reference was made to a few of the paperwork and it’s stated that even after changing into the Governor of Abia State in Could, 1999, the Appellant remained and described himself because the Chairman and Chief Govt of the third Respondent, the affairs of which he ran, as borne out by the paperwork tendered in proof earlier than the Decrease Courtroom. The Appellants case of Kalu v. FRN (2014) 1 NWLR (1389) 479 @ 531 determined by this Courtroom and the attraction to the Supreme Courtroom in Kalu v. FRN (2016) 9 NWLR (1516) 1, was cited in help of the arguments and it’s submitted that the Appellant can not now be heard to say that he resigned his place with the third Respondent since 20th January, 1999 or that he didn’t take part within the affairs of the corporate on the materials time.
Different submissions made within the 1st Respondens temporary are for last tackle on the finish of the defence and trial for the offences the Appellant was charged for. It’s nevertheless maintained that the proof positioned earlier than the Decrease Courtroom
8
reveals that the Appellant gave directives on disbursement of funds meant for the Abia Authorities Home to the accounts of his firm; third Respondent, by the 2nd Respondent and different folks and {that a} prima facie case was established to warrant calling on him to enter his defence as was rightly executed by the Decrease Courtroom.
In accordance with the realized Silk for the first Respondent, the docum
