STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON WHAT IS AN ARRAIGNMENT AND PURPOSE OF
Arraignment is a very important initial step in the trial of a person on a criminal offence or criminal charge.
It is a critical stage in the criminal justice process where the defendant is formally advised of the charges against him and is required to enter a plea.
The purpose of an arraignment is to:
(a) ensure the defendant understands the charges and their rights;
(b) provide an opportunity for the defendant to enter a plea; and
(c) set the stage for the next stages of the criminal justice process, such as pretrial motions, plea bargaining, or trial.
(Pp. 325-326, paras. H-B)
STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON ELEMENTS OF A VALID ARRAIGNMENT
The required elements of a valid arraignment which must also co-exist are:
(a) the accused must be present and unfettered before the trial court;
(b) the charge must be read and explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court;
(c) the accused shall be called upon to plead; and
(d) his plea shall be instantly recorded by the court.
Failure to comply with any of the above conditions for a valid arraignment will render the subsequent trial a nullity.
In the instant case, there was no arraignment of the 9th accused at all by the trial court.
Therefore, it cannot be said and neither can it be heard to be said, that a person who was never arraigned was in a joint trial with eight other co-accused.
(P. 326, paras. B-E)
STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON IMPORTANCE OF ARRAIGNMENT
An arraignment sets the stage for a criminal trial to begin.
Arraignment has been considered as a very important step being the initial step in the prosecution of a person accused of committing a crime in a criminal trial.
The essence of an arraignment of accused person charged with the commission of a criminal offence is for him to be formally notified in the language he understands, of the nature and essential details of the offence(s) he is alleged to have committed before and by the court so as to provide him with the opportunity to understand the offence(s) and make a plea thereto.
In the instant case, the person for whom the Court of Appeal rendered an entire proceeding a nullity, was never even arraigned.
[Okeke v. State (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25 referred to.]
(Pp. 326-327, paras. E-B)
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Requirements of a valid arraignment
By virtue of section 36(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence.
The essential requirements that must be satisfied for there to be a valid arraignment are:
(a) the defendant must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order;
(b) the charge or information must be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by the registrar or other officer of the court;
(c) it must be read and explained to him in the language he understands;
(d) the accused must be called upon to plead thereto unless there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the defendant is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information, the court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served.
These requirements are to ensure that an accused person gets a fair trial and he is not railroaded into jail. It is good practice for trial courts to specifically record that “the charge was read and fully explained to the accused/defendant to the satisfaction of the court” before then recording his plea thereto.
In the instant case, the records of proceedings showed that the charge against the appellant was read over and explained to him in the language he said he understood by an officer of the court to the satisfaction of the court, before he was called upon to plead to the charge. There was thus clear compliance with the requirements for a valid arraignment. Such compliance raises the presumption of regularity in favour of the entire arraignment process of the appellant.The onus was on the appellant to rebut the presumption by cogent and credible evidence showing that he did not understand the charge before he pleaded thereto. The appellant led no such evidence. Thus, the contention of counsel to the appellant could not stand and it was totally misconceived.
[Kajubo v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 721; Olabode v. State (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 254; Temitope v. State (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1243) 289; Olowoyo v. State (2012)
17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 346; Olanrewaju v. State (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1734) 1; Balogun v. F.R.N. (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt.1787) 353; Peter v. State (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 150-151, paras. G-H)