STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON EFFECT WHERE DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF TRIAL
The court cannot try someone without counsel who might be sentenced to death pursuant to section 36(e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The situation of the 9th accused here is different from the situation of a defendant who had been present at various stages of his trial and was absent at some specific periods.
Where the trial was continued in his absence, any finding against the accused would be a nullity.
In the instant case, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal was wrong since the 9th accused who never faced trial was not convicted.
Not only that, the 1st – 8th defendants faced the full trial and were present throughout the trial wherein thirteen prosecution witnesses gave evidence and exhibits A–H were tendered.
All the eight defendants, the appellant inclusive, had counsel of their choice, they cross-examined the witnesses and had a fair trial.
The fact that an accused charged with others who was at large at all material times appeared to have been found guilty would not exculpate the eight defendants.
It is only the person who was at large that could cry foul because he was denied fair hearing if evidence was led and decisions to his detriment were arrived at in his absence.
The cases cited as authority by the Court of Appeal are irrelevant since the courts in those cases had convicted the defendants who were not present during some specific days of their criminal trial, had taken plea and subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.
[State v. Lawal (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354) 565 referred to.]
(Pp. 329-330, paras. D-A)
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Whether party fully represented in court can complain of lack of fair hearing because of absence of interpreter
Where a party is fully and adequately represented by his counsel, he cannot complain that his fundamental right of fair hearing or right to interpreter was breached. His counsel is his eyes. If the counsel he hired is blind and falls into a ditch, he has to bear the brunt or can go against the counsel for damages for the breach of his right that the counsel did not protect or defend. In the instant case, being a capital offence, the appellant was ably represented by a counsel all through in the court proceedings including the contested proceeding of 12th March, 2014, when his plea was taken in English.
[MFA v. Inongha (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 343; Hamidu v. State (2024) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1958) 209 referred to.] (Pp. 138, paras. E-G)
SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Whether right to an interpreter can be invoked on appeal as a ground for setting aside a conviction
Once an accused person or his counsel failed to object to the non-provision of an interpreter at trial, the right to so object is lost forever. Such a right cannot be invoked on appeal. In the worst-case scenario, if the accused person and his counsel did not ask for an interpreter during trial, the failure to supply one is treated as a matter of procedure and a conviction stands, except the trial judge is satisfied that the failure to supply an interpreter led to miscarriage of justice. Where an accused person is represented by counsel, objection to failure to provide an interpreter must be taken at the trial and not on appeal. The reasoning is simple. Once an accused person and his Counsel acquiesced to an irregular procedure and there is no miscarriage of justice, he cannot be heard to complain of the procedure on appeal. In the instant case, the appellant did not prove and demonstrate before the court what injustice and miscarriage of justice he suffered for the denial of his right to an interpreter. Thus, where there was such a complaint, it is the duty of the appellant to show that such non-interpretation caused him miscarriage of justice.
[Okoro v. State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1290) 351 referred to.] (Pp. 139-140, paras. G-D)
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)