CaseLaw
Udo V. State (1988) CLR 6(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on Febraury 24th 1988
Brief
Facts
The appellant was on 13/8/80 arraigned on an information for murder. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was adjourned. After two further adjournments one Mr. Bassey, on 10/11/80 announced appear¬ance for the appellant. One Mr. Okon, Senior State Counsel for the State stated that he had no witnesses in court and that matter was adjourned to 16/12/80 for hearing. On 16/12/80, 3/2/81, 16/2/81, 9/3/81 and 13/4/81, the appellant and his counsel were in court; but the matter had to be adjourned because the prosecu¬tor was absent; without any recorded excuse. On 7/5/81 when both counsel were in court the case could not proceed because the appellant/accused was not in court. On 22/7/81 both appellant and counsel on both sides were in court but the case could not proceed because the witnesses were not in court. On 7/9/81 the appellant and his counsel were again in court; but the prosecuting State Counsel was again absent, without any known reason. The case was adjourned and a bench warrant issued for the arrest of the witnesses for the prosecution. On 28/9/81 the witnesses for the prosecution were not available and so the case was further adjourned, after a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of the village head. It was only on 29/9/81 that appellant and counsel on both sides were present and hear¬ing opened. P.W.1 and P.W.2 testified and were cross-examined.
On 26/10/81, the next adjourned date, Mr. Bassey for the appellant was absent. But he had written to the court to ask to be excused because he was appearing before another Judge in another murder case at Uyo High Court for an address. Without showing that he had given the application any serious thought, the judge got the 3 P.W. Bassey Asuquo Effiong to testify in the absence of the defence coun¬sel. The witness was, however, cross- examined by the appellant himself.
At close of prosecution's case, defence counsel closed his case without calling any evidence, when called upon to address the court, he merely said: “I leave it to the court". The appellant was convicted and he appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal, affirming the judgment of the trial court. The appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court. .