Whether an Accused Can Be Convicted and Sentenced in Absentia?

CASE TITLE: MAINA v. FRN (2022) LPELR-58942(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 24^TH NOVEMBER, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Criminal law and Procedure.

FACTS:

The appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, Coram Judice: Abang, J., delivered on 7th October 2021.

The Appellant was arraigned before the trial Court on a three count charge of operating an anonymous account by concealing his true identity, indirectly controlling funds which he reasonably ought to know forms part of the proceeds of unlawful activity and failure to make full disclosure of his assets in the Declaration of Assets Form. The offences were contrary to and punishable under the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.

​In proof of the offences charged, the Respondent called three witnesses. In the course of the testimony of the third witness, the Appellant who was on bail stopped attending Court, whereupon, on the application of the Respondent, the trial Court, pursuant to the provisions of Section 352 (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, ordered that the trial continue in the absence of the Appellant.

The trial continued and after the Respondent closed its case, the Appellant remaining absent, his defence was foreclosed. After the final address by the Respondent, the trial Court proceeded to judgment, convicted the Appellant as charged and sentenced him to five years imprisonment on each of Counts one and three of the Charge, and fourteen years imprisonment in Count two.

The Appellant, miffed by the judgment of the trial Court appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the Respondent by the evidence adduced before the trial Court proved its case in the three (3) counts charge beyond reasonable doubt to support the conviction of the Appellant.

2. Whether the trial Court was right to sentence the Appellant in absentia and impose the maximum terms of imprisonment.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court held that the appeal succeeded in part, to the extent that the terms of imprisonment were reduced The decision of the trial Court was affirmed in all other respects.

RATIOS:

• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – SENTENCING: Whether Court can impose a maximum sentence on a first-time offender; when appellate Court will intervene
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – SENTENCING: Whether a Court can impose a sentence on an accused person in absentia
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE(S): Nature of the offence of operating an anonymous account
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE(S): What prosecution must prove in an offence of false declaration of assets
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – ALLOCUTUS: Whether allocutus can be made on behalf of an accused person who is absent from Court