STATE V. BONIFACE (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 339
ON WHETHER FACT THAT ACCUSED WAS CHARGED UNDER A WRONG LAW OR SECTION OF LAW LEAD TO HIS ACQUITTAL
When the facts on which the accused was convicted are known to law, the fact of him being charged under a wrong law or section of a law cannot lead to his acquittal.
Thus, where an offence known to law is prescribed in a charge and the penalty for the offence is prescribed in a written existing law and the charge is erroneously brought under a wrong section of an existing law or under a law which has been repealed or has ceased to exist, and both the accused and his counsel are not misled and no objection is raised to the defective charge, a conviction for the offence disclosed in the charge will not be set aside on appeal if there has been no miscarriage of justice.
For the respondent to succeed in his contention therefore, he must show unequivocally that he was misled in the trial and that there was obvious miscarriage of justice as a result of his being convicted under the section of the law with which he was convicted.
This is lacking in the instant case.
[Dokubo-Asari v. F.R.N. (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 320; Mohammed v. State (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1032) 152; Adonike v. State (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 237; Yabugbe v. C.O.P. (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 152; Falobi v. Falobi (1976) NMLR 169 referred to.]
(Pp. 356-357, paras. C-B)
STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON WHETHER FACT THAT ACCUSED NAME SAID TO BE AT LARGE REMAINS ON CHARGE SHEET THROUGHOUT TRIAL UNTIL CONVICTION EQUATES TO HIM BEING JOINTLY CHARGED AND TRIED ALONG ACCUSED PHYSICALLY PRESENT
The fact that the name of an accused person who is said to be at large remains on the charge sheet throughout the trial and continues to be thereon until conviction and sentence does not equate to the said accused person being jointly charged and tried along with the accused persons physically present and it cannot be a ground for the nullification of the proceedings conducted and judgment delivered by a trial court.
(P. 337, paras. A-B)
Per ABIRU, J.S.C. at page 337, paras. B-D:
The decisions of this court in the case of State v. Lawal supra and of the Court of Appeal in Ngadi v. F.R.N. supra and around which the lower court configured its reasoning in its deliberations, are, with respect, totally irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of this present case.
In the two cases, it was physically present accused defendants who had been arraigned along with the other accused defendants and who fully participated at the trial that were absent from court on the date final addresses were rendered by Counsel to the parties, and not an accused person said to be at large.
STATE V. BONIFACE (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 339
ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION OF A CHARGE
Amendment and correction of a charge are two different things under the law.
Amendment is a formal revision or addition made to a statute, constitution, pleading, order or other instrument. A change made by addition, deletion or correction especially, an alteration in wording.
Correction is the act or an instance of making right what is wrong.
The obvious meaning and effect of these two words is what brings out the line of difference between amendment and correction.
An amendment of a charge means a substantive change to the charge. This could include changing the legal basis of the charge, adding or altering the facts to reflect new evidence.
The purpose of such an amendment may be to adapt the charge based on the development in the case.
The effect of this may affect the nature of defence which definitely will require court’s approval and the accused must be given time to respond to such an amendment.
On the other hand, correction of a charge means a minor or technical change fixing a typographical error, wrong dates, names or clerical mistakes without changing the substance of the charge.
The purpose is to correct mistakes which do not affect the essence of the charge.
Generally, the effect of this does not prejudice the accused and it is always allowed without formal application because it does not affect the legal substance of the charge.
In the instant case, the trial court was right in relying on section 272 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2010.
The issue raised is nothing but a pall of technicality which has no business with the substance of the case.
From the evidence before the trial court, it was excellently established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent in this case kidnapped the victim — Mrs. Grace Odimegwu, for a ransom of N3 Million.
This is clearly in contravention of section 315(2)(b) of the Criminal Code Cap. 36 Vol. 2 Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991 as amended by the Criminal Code (amendment) Law 2009.
The trial court was absolutely right in convicting and sentencing the respondent under the law.
The Court of Appeal made a forage into the technicality lane of calling the clerical correction of the law cited in the charge to amendment of the charge.
This, no doubt made a mess of the case of kidnapping for ransom which was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent by the appellant (prosecution).
(Pp. 357-358, paras. D-D)
STATE V. BONIFACE (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 339
ON WHEN TO RAISE OBJECTION AGAINST A CHARGE
The offence for which the respondent was tried was for kidnapping of one Mrs. Grace Odimegwu, for a ransom of N3m.
All the evidence and facts placed before the trial court showed it was the kidnap of the victim named Mrs. Grace Odimegwu, that the respondent was prosecuted. The respondent and counsel did not raise any issue against the charge. The respondent pleaded to the charge and the case went for full trial. It was after the trial and conviction that the respondent raised his objection. In the circumstance, the objection was not raised on time.
(P. 356, paras. A-B)
STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON MEANING OF AT LARGE ON A CRIMINAL CHARGE SHEET
The phrase “at large” on a criminal charge refers to the status of a suspect in a criminal matter who is still free and has not been apprehended.
Trial, as in a criminal case, is a formal legal proceeding wherein the accused defendant is arraigned and the prosecution, representing the government, and the defence, representing the accused defendant, present evidence to a Judge to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused defendant.
In the instant case, the person mentioned as the ninth accused person on the charge sheet, and who was at large, was not arraigned and the appellant presented no evidence against him to prove his guilt.
The appellant proved its case against the respondents who were physically present in court by tendering their confessional statements and through the evidence of eye witnesses, the victims of the robbery.
The appellant did not tender any extra-judicial statement of the person mentioned as the ninth accused person on the charge sheet and none of the victims of the robbery led any evidence against him.
The person mentioned as the ninth accused led no evidence to prove his innocence. The person mentioned as the ninth accused person was thus not jointly charged and tried along with the respondents.
Further and as stated earlier, the trial court did not deliberate on, make any finding on, and/or determine the guilt of the person mentioned as the ninth accused person and did not convict him and/or sentence him. What the Court of Appeal termed to amount to a joint charge and trial was the fact of the appearance of the name of the person mentioned as the ninth accused person, who was at large, on the charge sheet and the continued presence of the name thereon throughout the trial until conviction and sentence.
(P. 334, paras. B-G)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON WHETHER POLICE INVESTIGATION CONDITION PRECEDENT TO LAYING A CHARGE AGAINST A PERSON
There is no law in Nigeria today which makes Police investigation of any person a condition precedent to laying a charge before the court against the person who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence.
The Nigerian Police has the discretion to investigate or not to investigate an allegation of commission of a crime and Police investigation is not a sine qua non in criminal proceedings.
In the instant case, the appellant and the 2nd to the 6th respondents objected to the charge against them on the ground that they were not interrogated by the Police regarding the alleged offences. It sounds odd that the appellant will contend that because he was not investigated by the Police he should not be charged before any court.
Investigation of a crime is what generates evidence for effective prosecution of an offender. If there is no investigation and by that, there is no credible evidence to proof the crime beyond reasonable doubt, it is the prosecution that will suffer the loss to the gain of the person charged.
[Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606; C.C.B. (Nig.) Plc v. A.-G., Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 528 referred to.]
(Pp. 315, paras. C–G; 316, paras. D–F)
DANLADI BALA V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 495
ON REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CHARGE IN THE HIGH COURT
A charge preferred in the High Court shall have:
- A copy of the charge stating the offence(s);
- A list of the names of the witnesses who shall give evidence at the trial; and
- The proofs of evidence.
DANLADI BALA V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 495
ON WHETHER INTERPRETATION OF CHARGE REQUIRED WHERE ACCUSED PERSON UNDERSTANDS ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Where an accused person speaks and understands English Language (the language of the court) in which the charge is read over and explained to him, the requirement for the charge to be interpreted to him in any other language he claims to understand becomes unnecessary, and will not render an arraignment invalid.
In the instant case, it was on record that the two accused persons were present and understood English Language. It was therefore untenable that it was still necessary to provide an interpreter in the circumstances.
Thus, since the appellant presented himself to understand English and acquiesced to the arraignment being done in English, the failure of the court to provide an interpreter could not be considered an issue.
[Ibrahim v. State (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1394) 305 referred to.]
Pp. 528–529, paras. H–B)STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON PURPOSE OF A CHARGE
The primary purpose of a charge is to give an accused person good, sufficient and clear notice of the case against him. [Olatun bosun v. State (2013)17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 167; Idi v. State (2019) 15NWLR (Pt.1696) 448 referred to.] (P. 323, para. F).
STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO ANY DEFECT IN A CHARGE OR INFORMATION AND EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DO SO BEFORE PLEA IS TAKEN
The appropriate time to object to any defects in a charge or an information is when it is being read and before plea. If an accused person delays or fails to register his opposition to a charge before plea is taken, the law deems him as having acquiesced in the irregularity and caught in the intractable vortex of waiver. [State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142; Adekunle v. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000)717; Attah v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190;Olatunbosun v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382)167; Abidoye v. F.R.N. (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399)30; Ibrahim v. State (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1469)164; Baalo v. F.R.N. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1530)400; Amadi v. A.-G., Imo State (2017) 11 NWLR(Pt. 1575) 92; Okpa v. State (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt.1587) 1; Oko v. State (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1593)24; Eze v. F.R.N. (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589)433; Kolo v. C.O.P. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569)118; Destra Inv. Ltd. v. F.R.N. (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt.1621) 335; Ankpegher v. State (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1630) 249; Mohammed v. F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR(Pt.1636) 229; Mumini v. F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR(Pt. 1637) 568; Lanre v. State (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt.1660) 506; John v. State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676)160 referred to.] (Pp. 323-324, paras. F-B).
STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON IMPORTANCE OF A CHARGE SHEET
A charge sheet commences a trial and serves as the originating process in a criminal trial. (P. 325, para. B).
STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON APPROPRIATE TIME TO OBJECT TO ANY DEFECT IN A CHARGE OR INFORMATION AND EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DO SO BEFORE PLEA IS TAKEN
The appropriate time to object to any defects in a charge or an information is when it is being read and before plea. If an accused person delays or fails to register his opposition to a charge before plea is taken, the law deems him as having acquiesced in the irregularity and caught in the intractable vortex of waiver. [State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR 142; Adekunle v. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000)717; Attah v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190;Olatunbosun v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382)167; Abidoye v. F.R.N. (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399)30; Ibrahim v. State (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1469)164; Baalo v. F.R.N. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1530)400; Amadi v. A.-G., Imo State (2017) 11 NWLR(Pt. 1575) 92; Okpa v. State (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt.1587) 1; Oko v. State (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1593)24; Eze v. F.R.N. (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589)433; Kolo v. C.O.P. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569)118; Destra Inv. Ltd. v. F.R.N. (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt.1621) 335; Ankpegher v. State (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1630) 249; Mohammed v. F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt.1636) 229; Mumini v. F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR(Pt. 1637) 568; Lanre v. State (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt.1660) 506; John v. State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676)160 referred to.] (Pp. 323-324, paras. F-B).
STATE V. BONIFACE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1967) 339
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE TO OBTAIN SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER BEFORE FILING A CHARGE AGAINST AN ACCUSED PERSON
A charge or information is an originating process in criminal law. Generally, where a criminal charge is not signed by the Hon. Attorney General or an authorized officer in his department, the charge would be fundamentally defective for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings against the accused. Thus, lack of endorsement of a charge by a lawyer is a defect that goes to the root of the proceedings and renders same void ab initio. [State v. Isijola (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1884) 417 referred to.] (Pp. 363-364, paras. G-A).