CASE TITLE: Atuana v. FRN (2023) LPELR-60570(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH JULY, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL PROSECUTION)
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.
FACTS:
On 23rd January 2012, the Respondent was granted leave by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to prefer a criminal charge against the Appellant in CHARGE NO. FCT/HC/CR/129/2011: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA vs. LAWRENCE U. C. ATUANA. The Respondent then preferred an eleven-count charge against the Appellant for alleged infractions contrary to various provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and the Penal Code Act.
The Appellant could not see his way clear with the competence of the Charge, whereupon he filed a Preliminary Objection, praying the Court for the following orders:
“1. Strike out the eleven count charge/information referred to as NO. CR/129/11 for want of jurisdiction.
2. Quash all the eleven-count charge in charge NO. CR/129/11 purportedly filed before this Honourable Court against Dr. Lawrence U.C. Atuana.”
Some of the grounds for the preliminary objection were:
”a. The said charge was not brought in accordance with the law and due process contrary to and in defiance of the express provisions of Sections 9(2), 10(a) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2003 (“the Act”).
b. The provisions of Section 51 of the Act reaffirms that the Laws governing the investigation of the finances of a political party and the internal management of its finances are: The Nigeria Constitution (with particular reference to Sections 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227 and 228 thereof) and the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) with particular reference to Sections 86, 88 and 89 thereof.
c. The Accused/Applicant is not a ‘public officer’ within the meaning and intendment of Section 2 of the Act.
The Court took arguments on the preliminary objection and in its ruling, dismissed it. Peeved by the decision of the Court, the Appellant appealed.
ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the extant Law is the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 and that same has not been repealed by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2003 Cap C31 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004?
2. Whether the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the Appellant as charged.
3. Whether the Proof of Evidence before the trial Court disclosed a prima facie against the Appellant as to ground the grant of leave to prefer the charge as constituted?
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- LEGISLATION – CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES ACT – Whether the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 has been repealed
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL PROSECUTION – Whether the powers of the Attorney General to prosecute matters under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 requires direction from the National Assembly or INEC
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COURT PROCEEDINGS – Whether a criminal matter and a civil action can run concurrently
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL TRIAL/PROCEEDINGS – Whether the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and its officers can initiate and maintain criminal proceedings against any person for an offence under its Act
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – LEAVE TO PREFER A CHARGE – Whether an application for leave needs to be served on an accused
- CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL PROSECUTION – What the Court will consider in determining whether to quash a charge; instance where proof of evidence will be held to disclose a prima facie case for criminal prosecution
