Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Act/decree coming into existence during pendency of matter
Armed robbery
Order of retrial
Criminal trial de novo
Tribunal (certain consequential Amendments etc) Decree No. 62 of 1999
Criminal trials

Facts

The appellant and one John Boye and 10 others were arraigned before the Robbery and Fire-arms Tribunal, Ikot Ekpene, Akwa-lbom State headed by Justice Philomena Etim, and on the 3rd June, 1999 all the accused persons were convicted of the offence of Armed Robbery contrary to Section 1 (2) of the Armed Robbery and Fire-arms (special provisions) Act Cap. 398 Laws of Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Before the Trial Tribunal concluded the hearing and delivered its judgment, the Federal Government passed into Law, the Tribunal (certain consequential Amendment etc) Decree on the 28th day of May 1999, whilst the judgment of the Tribunal was delivered on 3rd day of June, 1999. Section 2 (1) (2) of the said decree dissolved all Tribunals established in any of the enactments specified in the schedule thereto and transferred all the part-heard to the Federal High Court or High Court of a State; particularly Section (1) (b) of the Decree provides as follows:-

"Where any part-heard matter is pending before any Tribunal on the date of the making of this Decree the Judge shall in a Criminal case try the matter de novo pursuant to this Decree"

The legal consequences of the above provision is that as at 3rd June, 1999 when the Tribunal delivered its judgment, it has been divested of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the mater.

All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The investigation by the General Commanding 82 Division Army, Enugu revealed that all the accused persons were military personnel and members of the Nigerian Army. All of them, after Court Martial were found guilty and dismissed from the Army.

The learned Chairman of the Special Tribunal justice Philomena Etim has this to say at p. 68 of the record."....... it is trite that mere denial of the offence is not enough if the accused cannot rebut or punch the unchallenged and concrete evidence of the prosecution. The submission by learned that Pw1 did not raise the issue of bayonet at the opportunity goes to no issue, since there is no such evidence before me. The defence had all the opportunity to tender the statement of the PW1 for the court to see. He cannot now in his address raise that is not in evidence before the Tribunal. Learned Judge of the Tribunal continued to state thus:

"On the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal and submissions of both counsel there is abundant evidence that the offence of armed robbery was committed on 30/8/97 as charged and that the accused persons were the robbers. The three ingredients of the offence have been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt against teach of the 10 accused persons by the prosecution and I so hold.

The 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th accused are each found guilty of the offence of armed robbery as charged and are hereby accordingly convicted", see pages 100 - 101 of the record.

The learned Chairman of the Tribunal sentenced each and every accused/convicted person to death in the manner to be determined by the Governor of Akwa Ibom State.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal the appellant successfully appealed to the court of Appeal Calabar Division, holden at Calabar.

The appellant was dissatisfied with this order of retrial and has appealed to this court..

Issues

The appellant was dissatisfied with this order of retrial and has appealed to this court....

Elijah V. State (2013) CLR 2(h) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 15th of Feb, 2013

Brief

Facts

Issues