Constitutional Right of an accused Person to an Interpreter

CASE TITLE: EDWARD v. STATE (2022) LPELR-56635(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 21ST JANUARY, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the right of an accused person to an interpreter.

FACTS

This appeal is against the decision of the Ondo State High Court sitting in Akure Coram: Yemi Fasanmi J.

The allegation against the Appellant is that on 12th day of May 2016 the Appellant and others still at large attacked one Segun Kehinde in his house while being armed, robbed him of the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira (N2,500.00) and a Nokia handset and then inflicted matchet cut on the victim. He testified as PW1.

​That also on the night of 8th September 2015 the Appellant and his gang attacked one Risikat Ahmed, upon threat to inflict matchet cuts on her. They took away her Nokia handset, N80,000.00 and set of gold worth Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only (N250,000.00) and a further sum of N100,000.00 while being armed with gun, axe and small cutlass. Before the High Court of Ondo State Akure the Appellant was arraigned and proceeded against for conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery; and membership of secret cult. Contrary to Section 6(6) (b) and Section 1(2) (a) and (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Qp R 11 Laws of the Federation 2004 and Section 1 of the Cultism and Secret Cult and Similar Activities (Prohibition) Law Cap 39 2006.

At the end of the trial where 5 witnesses testified for the prosecution with the Appellant testifying for himself, the learned trial Judge found the Appellant guilty convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging for conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery then discharged and acquitted him on the charge for membership of secret cult.

Not satisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court of Appeal determined the appeal based on the issues formulated by the appellant, viz:

1) Whether the trial of the Appellant and the entire proceedings at the lower Court was a nullity in view of the faulty arraignment of the Appellant.

(2) Whether the lower Court was right to have convicted the Appellant for both conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery and Armed Robbery in view of the evidence before it.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal had merit and it thereby allowed it. The judgment of the Ondo State High Court in Case No: AK/21/C/2017 was thereby set aside along with the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO AN INTERPRETER: Effect of failure to provide an accused person with an interpreter where he does not understand English language
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ARRAIGNMENT/TAKING OF PLEA: Requirements for a valid arraignment
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ARRAIGNMENT/TAKING OF PLEA: Whether every requirement for a valid arraignment must appear on the record of the Court