The Nation Newspaper

Tag: prosecution

  • ‘Abusers of codeine risk prosecution’

    The Director-General (D-G) of Consumer Protection Council (CPC,) Mr. Babatunde Irukera, has warned that dispensing, possession and consumption of illegal drugs, or legal drugs such as codeine illegally may lead to prosecution.

    Irukera said the warning about the dangers of taking medication containing codeine complies with Sections 2(c), (e), and (j), of the CPC Act 2004.

    Irukera said: “Codeine is an opiate, and one of many in the opioids family. It is, therefore, classified as a narcotic substance, although not an illegal drug.

    “Codeine is largely used as a pain reliever and cough suppressant. As such, it is an active ingredient in some expectorants or cough syrups.

    “Currently, and in exercise of the regulatory authority of The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), expectorants/cough syrups containing codeine may not be dispensed as non-prescriptive Over the Counter (OTC) medication.”

    The D-G noted that it is illegal to attempt to purchase, as well as dispense any such medication, except exclusively in accordance with prescription by a qualified and legitimate medical practitioner.

    He added: “Any possession, delivery or provision of these medications in the absence of a prescription, or legal acquisition but dispensing to a person other than whom it is specifically prescribed for, is a violation of law, constitutes drug abuse, and presents significant medical risks including possible injury, risky behaviour, addiction, and in extreme cases (especially pediatrics), fatality.

    “In particular, Codeine is implicated in serious adverse effects when taken with, or contemporaneously with alcohol or carbonated drinks. These methods of mixtures negatively interact and have become a serious and dangerous pattern which poses significant risks of debilitating side effects including respiratory difficulties, nervous system deficiencies and mental impairment.

    “Emerging professional medical and regulatory preference is to prohibit prescription of cough medication containing codeine to minors because of its properties and propensity to promote addiction and other exposure to illegal drug use. The Council therefore advises that cough medication with codeine should be prescribed, dispensed and administered in an abundance of caution and only in strict compliance with professional medical direction, and in any case not prescribed for, dispensed to, or administered to minors.

    “The Council also reminds consumers that violation of law with respect to dispensing, possessing and consuming illegal drugs, or legal drugs illegally is criminal and may subject offenders to apprehension, detention and prosecution, including by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), and upon conviction, a sentence to a term of imprisonment.”

  • ‘Gated streets defaulters risk prosecution’

    Lagos State Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs Muslim Folami yesterday warned that residents engaging in locking their streets with iron gates would be prosecuted.

    At the ongoing ministerial press briefing yesterday, Folami said the present administration in the state is concerned about the safety of the people.

    He reminded community leaders that there is a law in Lagos State that forbids residents installing street gates indiscriminately, saying residents must obey the laws.

    He said: “We are not saying you should not have gates in your streets but those gates were installed should be manned 24 hours. The reason we are opposed to the practice of keeping gates perpetually locked is that there may be emergencies, there may be fire outbreak. A pregnant woman can fall into labour anytime and would want to go to the hospital if you lock the gates what happens. We have had cases where some pregnant women died because the gates were closed.

    “There were so many incidents of fire outbreak and the streets could not be accessed to put out the fire because the gates to the streets were closed. We will not fold our hands and allow such things to happen. What are we doing as government then if we allow such things to happen? We have decided that henceforth anyone found guilty will be punished.’

    During the year under review, the commissioner said the Ministry upgraded the Lagos State University (LASU) FM and LASPOTECH FM equipment in order to deliver quality broadcasting to its audience and environs.

     

     

     

    Folami said the ministry embarked on sensitisation tour of all the markets across the state on the need to eradicate street trading.

    According to him, the present administration’s commitment to rapid development at the grassroots compelled the governor to upgrade and approve six Baales to Obaship Stools.

  • FG to invigorate prosecution of corruption cases with top lawyers

    The Senior Special Assistant to the Vice President, Laolu Akande, said last night that the Presidency was beefing up the prosecution of corruption cases in the country by injecting a number of senior lawyers with high integrity ratings to play active roles and lead the prosecution of the cases.

    Akande, in a statement in Abuja, spoke of tonnes of corruption cases arising from the conduct of the past administration, and said the establishment of special courts would expedite action on such pending cases.

    He said “We have a number of lawyers, senior lawyers, people with solid reputations who have volunteered to assist in prosecuting the cases and soon the prosecuting agencies will be assigning specific cases to them,”

    He also noted that Nigerians have not forgotten the severe damage caused the economy by the rampant abuse of public trust and grand larceny that characterized the past administration.

     

  • Shoddy prosecution

    Shoddy prosecution

     EFCC must work on this even though it cannot explain the whole gamut of its losing cases in courts  

    In spite of the fact that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has won some corruption cases, many Nigerians are baffled more by the many cases it has lost due to lack of diligent prosecution. As a matter of fact, the question on the lips of many is: how many high-profile convictions has the commission secured? To the extent that the EFCC has not succeeded in putting behind bars any of the very important thieves that we all know (in fact they know themselves, too), who are still parading our streets free, in some cases displaying their ill-gotten wealth to our chagrin, the commission is not doing much in its mission of sanitising the public space. That, at least, is the view of many Nigerians.

    More often, this inability to secure conviction of the big thieves has been blamed on incompetent prosecution. Although this cannot totally explain the phenomenon, at the same time it cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. As we all know, the judiciary itself is bedevilled by so many problems which make securing convictions of high-profile criminals much more difficult. But then, it is expected that the commission would play its part well such that Nigerians would see where, actually, the problem lies. Unfortunately, this is not usually the case.

    The threat, on Monday, by Justice Sherifat Solebo of an Ikeja High Court, Lagos, handling some of the cases of alleged corruption reechoed the need for more professionalism on the part of EFCC’s prosecutors. Justice Solebo had threatened to strike out cases brought before her by the commission for want of diligent prosecution. She said she was tired of repeated excuses by the prosecution team on its failure to arraign suspects. Instead of doing that, they keep seeking for long adjournments. Again, on Monday when the court registrar read the charge in one of the cases, FG vs Olayinka Sanni and Oyebode Atoyebi, the EFCC counsel, Samuel Daji and Mrs Giwa told the court that the suspects who were on administrative bail had jumped bail.

    An apparently angry Solebo said: “I have written to the EFCC chairman, Magu, on the inability of its officials to execute and prosecute the corruption cases it filed before this court”. She added: “And with effect from this week, all corruption cases handled by the EFCC that have been dragging this honourable court behind would be struck out as a result of want of diligent prosecution”.

    One can understand her frustration. She was withdrawn from her regular court to the special court established to facilitate the trials of corruption cases. Where the prosecution begins to mess up the trials due to incompetence or whatever, then, the purpose of setting up the special courts has been defeated. If the judge carries out her threat to strike out such cases, what is the fate of the anti-corruption war? Already, another judge in the same judicial division, Justice O.A. Williams, for the same reason, struck out a corruption case in ID/0722/17 cited as FRN vs  Nkeodi Godwin, Tunde Jabita, Akai Egwungwu, Albert Blessing, Charles Okebamama and Chester Ukandu. Who is the loser? Obviously the country is, because the accused were freed not necessarily because they were innocent but because the prosecution could not prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubts.

    Lest we forget, it was in the bid to facilitate court trials that the Goodluck Jonathan administration introduced the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) in May 2015. Also, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen, in September, last year, during the conferment of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) on 29 senior lawyers in Abuja announced the plan to set up an Anti-corruption Cases Trial Monitoring Committee as part of his judicial reforms, to ensure that both the trial and appellate courts handling corruption and financial cases key into the renewed efforts of ridding the country of corruption.

    And Nigeria has a surfeit of corruption cases. This is one reason why it is difficult to fault Transparency International’s (TI) ranking of the country as one of the most corrupt nations in the world. The average Nigerian knows this to be true. It is only that successive governments have always played the ostrich. Even the Jonathan government rejected the country’s ranking, arguing that its efforts at fighting corruption were not given due recognition in the assessment!

    But how else do we know that ours is a pathetically corrupt nation? Lagos alone has over 500 cases of financial crimes pending in its courts. The good news is that the bulk of these have been assigned to the Special Offences Courts in the state.  But there is a limit to which these special courts can perform magic. Here, we must take cognisance of the admonition by Monday Ubani, vice president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) that “creation of special courts with no adequate facilities, infrastructure, welfare packages; supervision, monitoring and reforms in areas that deserve it will be a colossal waste of time and resources”.

    It is clear that shoddy prosecution of cases is not the only reason the EFCC loses cases in courts. Olisa Agbakoba too gave some insight: “Poor prosecutions, weak financial resources and increased animosity towards judges are some of the reasons the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is losing many corruption cases in courts.” As a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Mr Agbakoba sure knew what he was talking about when he dissected the issue last year. We have seen from Agbakoba et al that a lot of factors must be addressed before we can wage a successful anti-corruption war.

    Let’s listen more to Agbakoba: “How come the EFCC has poor charges that lawyers are able to get injunctions against them? How come the agency goes to the wrong courts many times for prosecution? They are the ones strengthening the lawyers and allowing them to get injunctions because of poor prosecution. So, they prepare their cases terribly badly. In fact, if you see a typical EFCC charge, you will almost weep. I don’t know who gave them the idea that their charges must be in hundreds. You just need one or two charges to make it easy.

    Agbakoba continued: “When cases go wrong, they start shouting, not knowing the cases are badly framed, poorly investigated and badly prosecuted. That’s why cases are thrown out and we shout lawyers and judges.”

    There is also the bad blood created by the EFCC’s breaking into the homes of some judges in the dead of night in 2016 to arrest and search their homes. Agbakoba said this naturally created a gulf between the commission and the judges. “The rule of laws dictates you don’t denigrate an institution in order to win a battle. You don’t have to go in the middle of the night to break into their residences. You know these guys. You can arrest them or even invite them. They can’t run because you know them well. Going after them in that way splits the Bar like I am against it and we now forget the issues to discuss how. The problem is the EFCC thinks it is above the laws, which is not true. That is why the anti-corruption war is not going well and needs to be corrected.”

    He went on: “That is very wrong because you are not fighting with the rule of law yet you want the rule of law to assist you deal with looters. It is not going to work. The judges will be against you. They have their discretions to rule on your cases. You cannot force them to convict any person. You must bring the accused before them and if you have already antagonised the judges, how do you want to get prosecutions? They won’t be sympathetic to you because the judges also have their challenges.”

    In addition, corruption cases are some of the most expensive cases to prosecute. So, the Federal Government must be ready to put its money where its mouth is. If it is truly desirous of fighting corruption,’ it must be ready to fund the war. In this regard, Nigeria’s super-thieves are miles ahead of the government on how to evade justice after committing atrocities. They, in collusion with some senior lawyers and corrupt judges continue to waste time on interlocutory injunctions, leaving the substantive matters unattended to, sometimes for years. When the rich thieves have reached the end of the road with such subterfuge, they now bundle their super-rich accused (colleague) to court dressed like a corpse for wake-keep. It is at that juncture that they (super thieves) claim to be having cancer, hypertension, etc, in search of public sympathy, as if they are oblivious of the fact that some people have died because of the public funds they stole that could have been used to equip our hospitals, improve agriculture, and so on, to prolong the lives of fellow citizens.

    In summary, as Babatunde Fashanu (SAN), noted, “the creation of special courts can only aid the speedy dispensation of cases in those offences, it does not guarantee conviction and punishment of persons charged before those courts. The rest of the work lies with the investigating and prosecuting agencies who need to up their efficiency and ensure thorough investigation of cases before being charged to court to scale the bar laid down by law”. I am sure the idea of the special courts is not just for speedy dispensation of cases but speedy and fair trials for the accused. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the totality of these points so that the special courts would not end up a big disappointment like the ACJA.

  • Court orders police to pay victim N80m for illegal detention, prosecution

    The Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has ordered the Nigeria Police and a Lagos businessman, Rapheal Obi,  to pay N80 million to a clearing agent, Rapheal Okonkwo, for illegal detention, torture and malicious prosecution.

    Justice Babajide Candide-Johnson held that Okonkwo’s arrest, detention and prosecution before an Igbosere Chief Magistrate Court for alleged theft of a 40ft container, containing Topgel MC valued at N36.4 million, was unlawful and malicious.

    The court noted that the police failed to conduct any credible investigation before prosecuting Okonkwo.

    The judge held that the action of the police was “a patent and blatant abuse by the Police of the enormous powers of criminal prosecution.

    “The entire investigation by the Police, according to the court, and the evidence given in this court was the reception of a petition in respect of the case, the arrest of the accused person and the taking of his statement.

    “They did not give evidence of any investigation as to the theft of the container. Therefore, their evidence is of no use in determining the guilt or otherwise of Okonkwo”, the court held.

    Okonkwo was discharged and acquitted in charge No A/55/2004 by Chief  Magistrate Akintunde Olufemi Isaac.

    Through his lawyer, Abang Mkpandiok, he sued at the High Court, seeking among others, a declaration that his prosecution by the Police in charge A/55/2004, on the instigation of Rapheal Obi was malicious and injurious to him.

    He demanded N100million as damages.

    Justice Candide-Johnson said he believed the submission of the claimant that the attack on him was to avoid payment of a N60 million indebtedness.

    The judge also held that it was Obi who arranged the movement of Okonkwo from the detention of the Police at the Special Fraud Unit (SFU), Milverton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos  to Special anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

    “What exactly does this case have to do with armed robbery and SARS who are specifically a squad to tackle armed robbers? I can only arrive at one inference that the movement of Okonkwo to SARS was activated by an unjustifiable intention to inflict injury on him and a desire to cause him harm.

    “On the totality of evidence before this court, I hold that Rapheal Okonkwo has credibly established and proved all the requisite ingredients of malicious  prosecution.

    “Accordingly, I enter judgement forthwith in favour of Okonkwo against Rapheal Obi, Superintendent  Ibrahim Haruna Ishaq and the Inspector General of Police that the prosecution of Okonkwo in charge No A/55/2004 on the instigation of Rapheal Obi is malicious and injurious.

    “N80 million is awarded against all the defendants jointly and severally,” Justice Candide-Johnson said.

  • Pension fraud: AGF seeks arrest, prosecution of Maina

    Pension fraud: AGF seeks arrest, prosecution of Maina

    •Minister urges dismissal of suit challenging bench warrant

    Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN) has asked a Federal High Court in Kaduna to declined jurisdiction over a suit by embattled former chairman of the Presidential Pension Task Team, Abdulrasheed Maina, challenging the arrest warrant issued against him by an Abuja court.

    Malami urged the court to dismiss the suit and allow the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the government agency that got the arrest warrant, to proceed with Maina’s arrest and prosecution.

    The AGF told the court that granting any of the reliefs sought in the suit by Maina will do incalculable and permanent damages to the nation’s fight against corruption as well as reverse all gains made so far.

    Malami spoke in court processes he filed in response to the suit filed by Maina. The suit has the EFCC, AGF, Senate President and Speaker, House of Representatives as respondents.

    It basically challenges the legitimacy of the arrest warrant got against him by the EFCC and the commission’s decision to declare him wanted based on the said order issued by a Magistrate’s Court in Abuja.

    It is Maina’s contention that the EFCC was an illegal body, on the grounds that  law setting it up – the EFCC Establishment Act 2004 – was an illegal legislation, the amendment of its principal Act having not been allegedly effected by the National Assembly.

    He claimed that the principal Act – the EFCC Act 2002 – was amended as EFCC Act 2004 unilaterally by then President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    He argued that since the President lacked the constitutional powers to unilaterally alter any law made by the legislature, the EFCC Act 2004, allegedly altered by President Obasanjo, becomes illegal and void and on which the EFCC cannot rely to act, including declaring him wanted.

    Maina, among others, urged the court, in his originating summons, “to hold that the plaintiff (he) cannot be declared wanted or arrested by any government agency invoking the powers of the EFCC Act 2004 for the same (the law) being an illegal enactment”.

    However, the AGF, in his counter affidavit, argued that “since a court of law cannot shield any person from arrest, investigation and possible prosecution, the plaintiff (Maina) cannot claim to have any legal right in an effort to stop any subsequent arrest, investigation and prosecution”.

    Malami faulted Maina’s claim about the enactment of the EFCC Act 2004, insisting that it was validly passed by the two chambers of the National Assembly.

    He challenged the competence of the suit in an objection he filed.

    He urged the court to decline jurisdiction because the suit was wrongly commenced.

    The AGF also described the suit as an abuse of court process on the grounds that Maina had filed a similar suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Further proceedings will resume in the case on January 15, 2018.

     

  • NCC to begin prosecution of pre-registered SIM cards hawkers

    NCC to begin prosecution of pre-registered SIM cards hawkers

    The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) yesterday warned that the full weight of the law would be visited on those hawking pre-registered SIM cards in spite of the raids carried out by the commission this year.

    NCC’s Executive Commissioner, Stakeholders Management Mr. Sunday Dare, who sounded the warning, insisted that those selling and buying pre-registered SIM cards were breaking the law.

    Dare, who spoke with The Nation on the monitoring of compliance and enforcement of SIM Registration activities by NCC, maintained that imposition of sanctions on perpetrators of illegal activities would continue.

    He said prosecution of offenders would be stepped up in a final push to curb the menace because of its security implications.

    According to him, the recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Nigerian Communications Commission and Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps will boost operations in this area.

    He added that this year alone, the NCC has imposed about N250 million fines on the telecom operators through the commission’s Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Unit.

    Dare said several joint raids and arrests have also been made.

    “This is a continuous exercise until we get to zero level. There is a renewed push and soon virtually all pre-registered SIM cards will be unplugged from the country’s mobile networks through the new technological solution the commission will soon put in place,” he said.

    A task force set up two weeks ago by NCC is set to announce some drastic measures which may result in huge sanctions on defaulting operators.

    It was discovered that the operators have started to clean up their internal systems in apparent fear that NCC will soon come down hard on them.

  • PDP demands Maina’s arrest, prosecution

    PDP demands Maina’s arrest, prosecution

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has called for the arrest and trial of Mr. Addulrasheed Maina.

    The party also called for the immediate removal of the Minister of Interior Abdulrahman Danbazzau and Justice Minister Abubakar Malami.

    In a statement yesterday by its spokesperson, Prince Dayo Adeyeye, the party accused Danbazzau and Malami of facilitating Maina’s illegal return to the civil service and the double promotion given to him.

    “We, therefore demand the immediate arrest and prosecution of Maina for his atrocities, arrest and prosecution of those who helped him return to the country and got restored to his duty post with promotion added.

    “We also demand the immediate sack of the Minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Danbazzau, Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami who have been fingered in the illegal act of restoring Maina to office against good conscience”.

    The statement added:, “With good conscience at fighting corruption, the PDP  government then mandated the anti-corruption agencies to perform their constitutional duty. Maina fled, only to resurface in the country four months ago under the Buhari administration.

    “As a party of good conscience, we wish to condemn in strongest terms the penchant of the administration of President Buhari for giving safe haven to known criminals while hoodwinking Nigerians that it’s fighting corruption.

    “While we are growing fatigued shouting ourselves hoarse in protest against nepotism, a clear form of corruption under this administration which has been elevated to state craft, we are appalled that the reinforcement of financial corruption by this government might soon lead to the demise of this nation if the celestial does not intervene.

    “We are worried that the APC administration seem to have grown thick skin to constructive criticism, otherwise, no sane government, in spite of the open condemnation the party has received from Nigerians over its shielding of criminals, will repeat another one as done in the case of Maina”.

    The PDP queried the Civil Service rule relied upon in reinstating and promoting Maina, who the party said is a wanted criminal who had abandoned his duty post as an Assistant Director, to the position of a Director with all benefits attached.

    Continuing, the PDP added, “We wish the APC government will tell Nigerians where and when, and under which court jurisdiction Maina was cleared of his criminal allegations of stealing, warranting his restoration to duty and getting rewarded with double promotion.

    “It is reported that the fugitive has been rewarded with payment of bogus salary arrears amounting to N22 million, which he has reportedly collected upon approval and release by the Accountant General of the Federation.

    “We dare the government of the day to deny this with verifiable evidences.

    “We are shocked and sad as well that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with its viable network under the administration of the PDP, has suddenly lost steam to the point that it wasn’t aware of the entrance of a high class wanted criminal into the country until the media exposed it.

    “Nigerians can see that the APC administration has taken the fire out of our security agencies like the Police, the Department of State Services (DSS) and the likes”.

    The opposition party also alleged complicity on the part of the security agencies in the way and manner Maina got back into the country and resumed work without being detected until the media exposed him.

    “Nigerians will not forget in a hurry that the president Buhari administration has severally shown its commitment to protecting financial criminals who are willing to play ball and are known to be ardent supporters of the ruling party.

    “It is on record that Ahmed Gambo Saleh as Registrar of the Supreme Court, was accused of stealing N2.2bn belonging to the Supreme Court and was caught red handed.

    “Same Ahmed Gambo Saleh was initially arraigned but the case was almost immediately withdrawn and he was made Secretary of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    “Unexplainably, same Ahmed Gambo Saleh is now also the secretary of the committee monitoring corruption trials.

    “Nigerians have not forgotten in a hurry how the so called corruption fighting government of President Buhari refused to allow the law take its course in the graft allegations  involving suspended Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir Lawal and the Director-General of the Nigeria Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ayo Oke.

    “The government seems to have also buried without shame, the expose by the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Ibe Kachikwu on the illegal award of contracts running to over $25 billion by the Group Managing Director (GMD) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) who has told the world that he had the support of President Buhari in carrying out the heist.”

     

  • Police train 80 on prosecution, investigation

    The Police yesterday began a two-day training programme for 80 of its personnel as part of efforts to boost their capacity.

    The training, which is in collaboration with Bastion Chambers, would focus on prosecution and investigation to ensure effective service delivery.

    Declaring the training open, the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Ibrahim Idris said it would enhance the performances of police prosecutors and investigators in legal practices.

    The IG, who was represented Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of Training, Emmanuel Inyang, said the workshop with the theme: “Train the trainer”, would equip officers with skills which they would in turn transfer to their respective units with a view of training other officers under them.

    He said: “We believe that training and development are required to enable staff to work toward taking the organisation to its expected destination.

    “Police training, which shall be based on the fundamental values of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights shall be developed in accordance with the objectives of the police.

    “This programme will be in different phases and this is just the first phase. I assure you that we are very much committed to the development of our officers, who are always instrumental on the field. We will continue this and ensure the best for our officers,” he said.

    On the need for the training, the representative of the Bastion Chambers, Mohammed Nakordi, said the training was aimed at addressing the challenges faced by the police in criminal prosecution.

    Nakordi, who said the police lost most of their cases in courts, attributed the loss to inadequate training on legal skills.

    He, however, said the training would reduce the number of lost cases.

  • Defendants can’t be made to prove innocence if prosecution fails to establish prima facie case

    The Defendant or his legal Practitioner has the right to reply to any new point of law raised by the Prosecutor, after which, the Court shall give its ruling.

      (3). In considering the application of the Defendant under Section 303, the Court shall, in the exercise of its discretion, have regard to whether:

     (a). An essential element of the offence has been proved;

     (b). There is evidence linking the Defendant with the commission of the offence with which he is charged.

      (c). The evidence so far led is such that no reasonable Court  or Tribunal would convict on it; and

     (d).  Any other ground on which the Court may find that a  prima facie case has not been made out against the Defendant for him to be called upon to answer”.

    Section 357 on its part provides thus: –

    ”Where at the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it  appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the Defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court  shall, as to that particular charge, discharge him being guided by the provision of Section 302 of this Act”.

    From the foregoing provisions of the ACJA 2015, it is apparent that the Court is essentially to be guided in determining whether or not to uphold the Defendant’s No Case to Answer Submission, by the guidelines set out under Section 303(3) of the ACJA.  In other words, the Court is to determined whether or not by the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, it can in the exercise of its discretion hold that the evidence discloses or has proved: –

    (1).   an essential element of the offence.

    (2).  link between the Defendant and the commission of the offence.

    (3).  the evidence is such that so reasonable Court or tribunal would convict on it; and

    (4).  any other ground upon which it may find that a prima facie case has  been made out against the Defendant for him to be called upon to   answer.

    Before the coming into effect of the ACJA in 2015, which has now codified the above guidelines, the Courts have in a plethora of cases held that a No Case to Answer submission shall be upheld where:-

    (1)  The Prosecution has failed to prove an essential element of the alleged offence

    (2).    The evidence adduced has been so discredited as a result of Cross  Examination or

    (3).  The evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal will convict on it.

    In IBEZIAKO V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1963) 1 ALL NLR P. 61, the Court held that these conditions are not cumulative.  Once any one of these conditions exists, the Court on its volition or the defence can validly make a No Case to Answer Ruling or Submission of No Case to Answer.  In AJANI & ORS V R (1936) WACA P.3 the Court held that the submissions of No Case to Answer may be made in respect of one Count of offence of the entire Charge Sheet and where the Charge contain more than one Count of offence, the Court must make a finding on each Count of Offence separately.  Conclusively, the Supreme Court in DABOH V STATE (1977) 5 SC P. 197 held that at the time submission of no case to answer is made, what the Court considers is whether the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case to which the accused would be called to answer.  See also: AKPAN V STATE (1986) 5 SC P. 186.

    These said, what then does the phrase “prima facie case” mean?  The authors of the Black Law Dictionary (8th Edition), at page 1228 defines it as:

    ”The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.  A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact trier to infer     the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favour”.

    In ABACHA V STATE (2002) 7 SCNJ P1, the Supreme Court explained it thus: – ”The evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is such that if   uncontradicted and if believed it will to be sufficient to prove the case against the accused”.

    In ONAGORUWA V THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 303) P. 49 the Court of Appeal explained it in these words:-  ”A prima facie case is a case where the Prosecution has presented   sufficient evidence to render reasonable a conclusion on the evidence that the accused is convictable, in the absence of contrary evidence”.

     Now under Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011, it is provided that if the commission of crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  By Section 135(2), the burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful action is on the person who asserts ie the Prosecution.

    In a submission of No Case to Answer however, though the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution which asserts the commission of the offence by the Defendant, the burden shall be deemed discharged if the Prosecution by its evidence establishes a prima facie case against the Defendant with regard to the Court of the Charge.  In other words, the Prosecution is not required at this stage to prove the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.  An evidene by it which prima facie links the Defendant with the commission of the offence will suffice for the Defendant to be called upon to put his defence with regard to that Count of the Charge.  See: DABOH V STATE supra.  Section 303(3)(a) to (d) of ACJA.  The Proseuction must however establish each ingredient of the offence vide prima facie evidence against the Defendant failing which the Defendant’s No Case to Answer will be upheld.  The Court of Appeal made this point in RASAKI V THE STATE (2011) 16 NWLR (PT. 1273) P. 281 when it held thus: –

    ”Accordingly, where the evidence led by the Prosecution fails to establish a single element…the Prosecution would have failed in its  duty to prove the offence charged and the accused would be entitled   to an acquittal”.

    Having set out the basic legal frame work guiding No Case to Answer submission, the Court now proceeds to consider each Count of the Information in relation to the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses to determine whether or not the evidence discloses a prima facie case against the relevant Defendant.  Put in another way, the Court proceeds to determine whether the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses link(s) the relevant Defendant with the offence charged.

    In Count 1 of the information, the three Defendants are charged as follows:

    ”Adeniyi Francis Adetokunbo Ademola Adult “M”, Olabowale   Toluwatope Ademola “F” both of on 32 Samuel Ogbemudia Crescent,  Zone E, Apo Abuja and Joe Odey Agi “M” Principal Partner, Joe Agi & Associates of 1, Villa Street, Minister’s Hill, Maitama Abuja,  between 11th and 26th March 2015 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of  this Honourable Court conspired to influence Adeniyi Francis Ademola in the course of his official function as a Judge of the       Federal High Court with a sum of  N30, 000, 000.00 and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code Law”.

    By these, the three Defendants are charged with Conspiracy to influence the 1st Defendant in his official functions as a Judge of Federal High Court with N30million and by so doing committed an offence contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code Law. Section 97 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532 Laws of the Federal Capital Territory (“Laws of FCT”) provides thus: –

    ”97(1). Whoever is a party to a Criminal Conspiracy to commit an   offence punishable with death or with imprisonment shall where no express provision is made in this Penal Code for the  punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same   manner as if he had abetted that offence.

    (2).  Whoever is a party to a Criminal Conspiracy other than a  criminal Conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as  aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not  exceeding six months or with fine or with both”.

    By the above provision, it is evident Section 97 of the Penal Code on which Count 1 of the Charge is predicated merely provides for punishment for the offence of Conspiracy.  It has not made provision for substantive offence of Conspiracy.  The learned 2nd Defendant’s Counsel made submissions in this regard.  He urged the Court that the implication of hinging that Count of Information on Section 97 of the Penal Code is that there is no charge disclosed in that Count and hence there is nothing for the 2nd Defendant to answer.  The Prosecution in its response (at page 6 paragraphs 2.04 of its Response to 2nd Defendant’s No Case to Answer submission) conceded that it “proceeded to charge the Defendants in this case for Conspiracy to influence the course of justice under Section 97 of the Penal Code because there is no express provision under the Penal Code for that genre of Conspiracy, Conspiracy to influence the course of justice.  Thus while Section 182 provides for the substantive offence of “influencing the course of justice”  there is no specific provision for Conspiracy to influence the course of justice hence the reliance on the omnibus provision in Section 97″.

    In his Reply on points of law, the learned 2nd Defendants Counsel referring to the above admission by the prosecution, urged the Court that in the circumstances the complainant lacks the vires to charge a Defendant for an offence that is not tied to any written law. That doing so contravenes the provision of Section 36(8) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and decision of the Court in AOKO V FAGBEMI (1961) 1 ALL NLR P.400 and RODA V FRN (2015) 10 NWLR (PT. 1468) P. 427.  He contended that the issue goes to the competence of the charge and by the provision of Section 396(2) of ACJA.  The 2nd Defendant having taken a plea to the charge has not lost the right to raise an objection or contend she has been misled by the content of the charge contrary to the submissions of the Prosecution Counsel which postulates she cannot object to the charge by virtue of Sections 220 and 221 of ACJA.  The 2nd Defendant’s Counsel contended this is because the earliest opportunity available to the 2nd Defendant to contend she has been misled by this fundamental defect is at this stage of No Case Submission”.

    I have given due consideration to the foregoing contentions.  As aforesaid, Count 1 of the Charge is predicated on Section 97 of the Penal Code which has not provided for the substantive offence of Conspiracy to commit a Criminal Offence but rather the punishment for it.  Section 36(8) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provides thus: –

    ”No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account        of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place constitute          such an offence, and no penalty shall be imposed for any criminal    offence heavier than the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed”.

    By the clear words of Section 36(8) of the Constitution no person shall be held guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute such an offence.  The case of AOKO V FAGBEMI supra relied upon by the learned 2nd Defendant’s Counsel held this much.