Can a Court Revoke Bail Suo Motu?

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal questions the propriety of refusing an accused person’s request for the release of his International Passport in order to travel abroad for medical treatment as well as the revocation of a previous bail.

CASE TITLE: PETERS v. FRN & ANOR (2023) LPELR-60522(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 26TH JUNE, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

FACTS:

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of Lagos High Court (trial Court) in Suit No: ID/1178C/2015 wherein the trial Court declined to grant the orders prayed for in the Appellant’s motion paper.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Appellant and Nadabo Energy Limited are standing trial before the trial Court for the offences of obtaining money by false pretences, forgery, and uttering of forged documents since 2015. They were arraigned for trial on 7th day of October, 2015. The Appellant and the 2nd Respondent were standing trial for similar offences in Charge No: ID/118C/2012. On 28th September, 2022, the Appellant brought a motion before the trial Court presided over by Justice S. S. Ogunsanya for an Order seeking the release of his International Passport to him to enable him travel abroad for Medical Treatment. The 1st Respondent opposed the application and filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 7/10/2022 as well as a Written Address. The 1st Respondent also filed further and better Affidavit on 14/10/2022. In a considered ruling, the trial Court on 31/10/2022 refused the application. Without any application, the trial Court suo motu revoked the perfected bail the Appellant had enjoyed since the commencement of his trial and the conditions which he had never violated.

The Appellant who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The following issues for determination were considered by the Court:

(1) Whether the unsolicited revocation of the Appellant’s bail by the trial Court in the course of determining an application for the release of his International Passport to travel abroad to take care of his health was in accord with the dictates of Justice and the existing law and whether this decision did not hereby breach the Appellant’s right to fair hearing and presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

(2) Whether the trial Court was correct in law particularly the provisions of the 1999 Constitution when it ceded its judicial powers to the Prosecution to assume an adjudicatory role and thereby participate in the determination of the strictly judicial question of whether the Appellant has fulfilled the bail conditions granted by the Court.

(3) Whether the trial Judge failed to properly exercise her discretion when she refused the grant of the Appellant’s application praying for a temporary return of the Appellant’s Passport to him so that he could proceed abroad for urgent medical consultation.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – Purpose of bail
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – Whether the grant of bail to an accused person is a discretionary matter of the Court
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – Power of Court to revoke bail suo motu

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – Circumstance(s) where the application of an accused person on bail for a temporary return of his Passport in order to travel abroad for medical treatment will be refused