Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

FRN V. Ya’u Mohammed (2014) CLR 3(c) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 14, 2014

Brief

  • Plea
  • Interpretation Of Statutes
  • Failure To Record The Presence Of An Interpreter
  • Offences
  • Grounds Of Appeal
  • Issues Of Determination
  • Duty Of Court
  • Impotenia Excusat Leagem
  • Sentence
  • Section 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act
  • Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011
  • Section 218 Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 285(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 285(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 285 Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 36(6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 36(6) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Section 33(7) of the 1979 Constitution
  • Section 213 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law No. 10 of 2007

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division (the Lower Court) delivered on 6th December, 2012 setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division (the trial court) in its judgment delivered on 17th December 2008.

The respondent herein was arraigned before the trial court on a one-count charge of unlawful possession of 8 kilograms 0f Indian Hemp, otherwise known as cannabis sativa, On 22/10/2008 when he was first arraigned, his plea could not be taken, as he did not understand the language of the court. The case was adjourned to enable the prosecution secure the services of an interpreter to interpret the proceedings from English to Hausa language and vice versa. On 1/12/08, an interpreter was available and his plea was taken. The learned trial Judge made the following record:

"PLEA OF THE ACCUSED

Charge read to accused person and interpreted from English to Hausa for the accused person who perfectly appeared to understand same. And pleaded guilty to the charge."

Thereupon the prosecution summarily reviewed the facts of the case and tendered one exhibit, Exhibit A (the seized Indian Hemp). The respondent informed the court that Exhibit A did not belong to him but to his neighbor, one Dahiru Dan Mallam. The proceedings were adjourned to enable the prosecution produce the said neighbor. At the resumed hearing on 17/12/2008, no further mention was made of the neighbor. The prosecution tendered Exhibits B - F. The respondent admitted ownership of all the exhibits whereupon the prosecution called upon the court to convict the respondent. After considering the allocutus of the respondent, the court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment.

The respondent was dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence and appealed to the Lower Court. The Lower Court unanimously allowed the appeal and discharged and acquitted him. Dissatisfied with the discharge and acquittal of the respondent by the Lower Court, the appellant has appealed to this court.

Issues

  • "1.
    Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal...
    Read More