SIR: On Wednesday October 13, the Appeal Court in a unanimous decision discharged the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra [IPOB], Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, of the 15-count terrorism-related charges preferred against him by the federal government. The news, which triggered heavy euphoria in some sections of the country, was almost quenched when the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami SAN, in his first reaction to the court’s decision, said that Kanu was only discharged and not acquitted.
Legally speaking, discharge and acquittal are no synonyms. They convey different meanings and their usage or application entails different implications. An accused person standing trial can be discharged but not acquitted and can be both discharged and acquitted at the same time. What this means in simple language is that when the honourable court discharges an accused person, the court has carefully looked at the offence and ingredients thereto and the weight of evidence against the accused but found out there are insufficient grounds to further proceed with the case. Usually, when this happens, the accused person is released from custody on the grounds that he was arrested or brought to court on unsubstantiated claims.
Read Also: Umeh to Fed Govt: Release Kanu to end tension in Igbo land
Acquittal, on the other hand, means that the court has found the accused person innocent of all the charges preferred against him after carefully looking at the facts and evidence presented by the prosecution. In a criminal trial, the case is said to have been unsuccessful and failed because the prosecution is unable to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. Once the accused is acquitted, the doctrine of autre fois acquit is activated pursuant to Section 36 [9] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [as amended] 1999.
Now, what is the implication of being discharged or acquitted? An accused person who is discharged can be rearrested on the same grounds and fresh proceedings commenced against him. Since he is discharged because there is no prima facie evidence against him, he can be re-arrested and be charged to court when new evidence emerges or when the prosecution strongly feels they can substantiate their claims better. So, an accused person that is discharged may still have a case to answer. Put differently, he is not yet innocent; as that has not been yet established. Whilst, in acquittal, the innocence of the accused has been established by the court and the prosecution is barred from further arresting or charging the accused person to court on the same offence.
To say the least, Kanu can be freed and rearrested and proceedings against him can proceed on different or the same grounds.
- Jerry Obanyero,
jerryobanyero@gmail.com.