The Respondent herein was arraigned on 14th January, 1994, before the Tribunal presided over by Oni-Okpaka, J., on a six-count charge of conspiracy to import heroin, importation of heroin and possession of heroin under Sections 10(c) (b), 10(a) and 10(h) respectively of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Amendment Decree No. 15 of 1992.

The prosecution called nine (9) witnesses while the Accused did not testify and called no witness. The case for the prosecution, put briefly, was that on information received by them sometime in December, 1995, two (2) containers suspected to be containing hard drugs were identified and seized while the ship Esmeralda from Bangkok was being off loaded at the Apapa Wharf. Investigation revealed that the owner of the container was the Respondent. He was arrested at the Murtala Muhammned International Airport on his return from Bangkok on the 22nd of December 1995 and taken to Apapa Wharf where the two (2) containers were shown to him. He admitted being the consignee of both containers.

In his presence, the two (2) containers were opened and searched. Water coolers, among other items, were found in them. Some whitish substances suspected to be hard drugs were found concealed on the top of the water coolers. During investigation two (2) bills of lading were found in the Respondent's luggage, which pointed to the direction that another consignment was coming from Bangkok. The Respondent was taken to Apapa Wharf and in his presence; additional two (2) containers were opened and searched. Again, substances suspected to be hard drugs were also found concealed in the water coolers. All the substances seized from him were field tested, weighed and carefully packed. A portion of same, sent to the Forensic Laboratory for analysis later confirmed the stances to be heroin.

The Respondent, as stated earlier on, did not testify and called no witness. His Counsel, Mr. Etudo was harassed out of the proceedings by the Tribunal on 25-1-94. The Tribunal gave the Respondent seven (7) days to procure another Counsel; The Respondent who was ordered to be remanded in prison custody with stringent conditions had no opportunity to arrange for another Counsel of his choice. The trial proceeded and at the end the Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to a total of 115 years of life imprisonment with hard labour and sentences to run concurrently.

The Respondent felt unhappy with the stance of the Tribunal and appealed to the Court below which on being properly addressed, in its considered judgment handed out on 4th March, 2003, allowed the appeal on the ground of lack of fair trial.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal. Appellant therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.