MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON DEFINITION OF WITCHCRAFT
Witchcraft is the use of magic powers, especially evil ones.
(P. 246, para. D)
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Criminal conspiracy means when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act; or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is called a criminal conspiracy.
[Omotola v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148; Lucky v. State (2024) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1944) 461; Jato v. State (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1674) 317; Busari v. State (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1452) 343 referred to.]
(Pp. 254-255, paras. H-B)
STATE V. ARDO (2025) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2002) 303
ON MEANING OF AT LARGE
At large means the person is nowhere to be found, seen and was not before the court.
In the instant case, the names of the 9 accused persons were listed in the charge sheet.
The 9th accused person Abdu Ojulu was however indicated on the page of the charge sheet as at large meaning he was not before the court.
(P. 325, paras. F-G)
Per IDRIS, J.S.C. at page 325, paras. G-H:
“The trial court, at page 157 of the record of appeal, stated that the 9th accused was at large.
On the 3rd April, 2017, the accused persons were arraigned and it was stated clearly that the 9th accused was absent.
In other words, the 9th accused was not present in court on the day of arraignment and he took no plea.”
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE
MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207
ON PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCE OF WITCHCRAFT
By section 216 of the Penal Code, whoever by his statements or actions represents himself to be a witch or to have the power of witchcraft; or accuses or threatens to accuse any person of being a witch or of having the power of witchcraft, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, with fine, or with both.
(P. 246, paras. A-C)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON DUTY ON COURT IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
The court has an onerous duty always, when declaring and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution to bear in mind, that the Constitution itself is a mechanism under which laws are to be made by the legislature and not merely an Act which declares what the law is.
Thus, where the question is whether the Constitution used an expression in the wider or narrow sense, the court must always lean, where the justice of the case so demands, to the broader interpretation, unless (of course) there is something in the context or in the rest of the provisions of the Constitution to show that the narrower interpretation would best serve the object and intendment.
In the instant case, as aptly postulated here-to-fore, the provisions of section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are crystally clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal, thus must be accorded their plain ordinary grammatical meaning.
[Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) 1 SCNLR 427; A.-G., Ondo State v. A.-G., Fed. (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 referred to.]
(Pp. 310–311, paras. G–C)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON PRINCIPLE GOVERNING INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
In the interpretation of statutes, the words used should be given their ordinary grammatical meanings unless such an approach will lead to an obvious absurdity. The words used by the Legislature, in section 260(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2007, are clear, plain and unambiguous. By the clear and straightforward provisions of the section, the purported preliminary objection raised by the appellant and other defendants, in the trial court, was avoidable and premature as it was filed when the prosecution had not even tendered any evidence in the case, not to talk of the prosecution having closed its case.
[Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 referred to.]
(Pp. 314-315, paras. H-C)