CRIMINAL LITIGATION WEEK 6 TASK, TOPIC: JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF CRIMINAL TRIALS

NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL

LAGOS CAMPUS

CRIMINAL LITIGATION WEEK 6, DECEMBER 12, 2016

TOPIC: JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF CRIMINAL TRIALS

LESSON OUTCOMES:

At the end of this lesson students would be able to:

1.   Discuss and explain the various courts of criminal jurisdiction in Nigeria.

2.   Discuss the criminal jurisdiction of courts and the venue of criminal trials.

3.   Explain the jurisdiction and venue of criminal trials of the International Criminal Court.

LESSON CONTENTS:

1. Jurisdiction and venue of courts of General Criminal jurisdictions
2. Jurisdiction of courts of Special Criminal jurisdiction-Federal High Court; National Industrial Court; Court Martial; Juvenile Court and Coroners Court.
3. Jurisdiction and venue of International Criminal Court.

ACTIVITY BEFORE CLASS

Students are to read in advance various courts of criminal jurisdiction both general and special in the north and south paying particular attention to the statutes, cases and materials provided on the subject.

All groups will prepare the assignment and be ready to present them in class. Students are to research on jurisdiction of criminal courts in Nigeria including the International Criminal Court.

All presentations must be on power point and electronic copies to be submitted latest Sunday December 11, 2016 by 7.00pm. The Hard copies are to be in each group’s file together with comprehensive list of participants latest by 9.00am Monday December 12, 2016.

ASSIGNMENT AND TASKS

1. Following the refusal of Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba and Danbaba Bakayoko to obey the orders of their superior officer and their absence from duty without permission (AWOL), Brigadier Kun yenkan, the General Officer Commanding 1^st Mechanised Division of the Nigerian Army Lagos on August 11, 2014 instructed Lt. Colonel Egwuatu Mario orally to convene a Court Martial to try Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba and Colonel Danbaba Bakayoko. Eight days later Brigadier Kun yenkan confirmed his instruction in writing. The members of the Court Martial were Lt. Colonel Bakayoko Banza the most senior administrative officer at the Command and Lt. Colonel Muninga Yoko his deputy as member; Mrs. Yonko Bala as Judge Advocate.

At the trial of Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba and Colonel Danbaba Bakayoko, the Court Martial relied on the charges already sent to them and asked them to defend themselves against the charges. However Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba refused to participate or take any part in the trial. The counsel to Colonel Danbaba Bakayoko not being a military officer was not allowed to appear before the court martial. The Court Martial convicted them and sentenced them to demotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was also informed of his right of appeal to the Armed Forces Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal within 14 days from the date of the judgment.

WITH the aid of statutory and judicial authorities answer the following questions;

(a)  The validity of the instruction given by Brigadier Kun yenkan to convene the Court Martial.

(b)  The constitution of the Court Martial.

(c)   The procedure adopted at the trial of Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba and Colonel Danbaba Bakayoko.

(d)  The right of appeal to the Armed Forces Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal.

(e)  Assuming Colonel Yanbassa Mulumba and Colonel Danbaba Bakayoko was first tried in a regular court but before judgment, the Attorney General of the Federation entered a Nolle Prosequi, can they be tried again in a Court Martial on the same charges?

(f)    Assuming the nolle prosequi was entered at the Court Martial but subsequently they were re-arraigned at the Civil court, can they raise the defence/plea of autro fois acquit?

2. Bishop Kawasaki Mulayaki has been arraigned at the Coroners Court Ikeja for unlawfully and negligently causing the death of five worshippers in his church on November 10, 2014. The presiding judge, Justice Ebute Metta ordered every other person out of court apart from the parties and their counsel due to the nature of the case. The defendant was subsequently convicted and the matter transferred to the High Court for sentencing.

Comment on the propriety or otherwise of the proceedings using case law and statutory authorities.

3. Engineer Randolph Watkins an African-American during his brief stay at Yobe as an expatriate had carnal knowledge of Fatimatihum Kango a waitress in the hotel where he is lodged. He has been arraigned at the Upper Area Court SabonKanya Yobe for the offence. His counsel Mallam Ibukungo Mayakija raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Area Court to try his client as he is a non- Nigerian and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of Upper Area Court.

AS an erudite advocate what will be your response to this objection?

4. Osamahan Kamalu 14years old, Abana Zenba 28years old and Kongo Kongo 32years old were all arrested and arraigned before the Ebonyi State High Court Abakalike, for the offence of Murder and Armed robbery. Osamahan Kamalu acted as a pointer and confused the gateman which enabled the other two members gain entrance to the premises. Trouble ensued during the sharing of the loot as no formula was agreed. Counsel for Abamdike Kamalu objected to the jurisdiction of the court to try his client. The trial court sustained the objection and struck out the name of Osamahan Kamalu from the case.

As a Senior State Counsel Respond to this objection and comment on the ruling of the trial court.

5. Babagana Mpape and Kalas Ganiba is standing trial for Manslaughter and receiving stolen property at the Magistrate’s Court Portharcourt Road, Rivers State. At the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate (Joyce Limanu) was of the view that due to the nature of the offence the accused ought to receive a more severe punishment and after convicting them, the Magistrate sent the case to the State High Court for sentencing.

As Chairman of NBA Rivers State comment on the regularity of the procedure. Would your answer be different if the proceedings were pending in Magistrate Court Anyigba, Kogi State?

6. His Excellency Loritha Zuma former Governor of Aziba State Nigeria is standing trial for financial misappropriation of State fund and money laundering among others. He has been arraigned by the EFCC on a 20 Count Charge in Federal High Court Calabar Judicial Division. His Counsel a Senior Advocate of Nigeria has raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court Calabar to entertain the matter, but the court overruled the objection holding that it has jurisdiction.

Comment on the propriety or otherwise of the preliminary objection and the subsequent ruling of the court.

7. General Boboye Harikanami a Nigerian is standing trial at the International Criminal Court for the offence of Rape and illicit trafficking in drugs at Badagry near the Seme Border between Nigeria and Benin Republic. He was arrested by men of the Operation sweep patrolling the border. Due to his connection to the high and mighty in Nigeria, all attempts to prefer the charge at the relevant court is frustrated. The Attorney General of Lagos State having obtained a fiat from the Attorney General of the Federation petitioned the ICC and after investigation by the ICC, the Attorney General was given leave to file the charges at ICC. General Boboye Harikanami has been charged by the Attorney General of Lagos State before the ICC for Rape and drug trafficking. His counsel a Senior Advocate of Nigeria at the hearing raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court to assume jurisdiction over the matter.

As an erudite scholar, comment on the propriety or otherwise of the preliminary objection by counsel for General Boboye Harikanami. In your answer highlight the jurisdiction of the court and the procedure for commencement of action, including the fiat given to the Attorney General of Lagos State.

8.      A six men armed robbery gang resident in Lagos Ibadan/ Express way has been terrorizing motorist on the high way. They however agreed to suspend operation for a while due to increase operation of military personnel in the area and decided to launch an attack in a popular hotel in Abuja. While on their way they stopped at filling station in Oyo State and forced the attendant at gun point to fill their tank. They also robbed the filling station of N100,000.00 and drove off. The car developed fault at Ondo State and they quickly snatched a pathfinder jeep from a motorist and drove off. Upon arrival in Ekiti State, they ditched the car and snatched a land cruiser jeep from another motorist. In Kogi State they ran out of money and decided to rob a new generation bank. In the process they killed two policemen attached to the bank and made away with huge amount of cash. They eventually arrived Abuja and kidnapped a prominent politician. They later demanded a ransom of N100,000,000.00 One Hundred Million Naira) only. Eventually they were paid N50,000,000.00. They were however arrested in Kogi State following a tip off and have been charged before the Lokoja High Court Kogi for all the offence. Their counsel raised objection that Kogi State High Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence.

Comment on the jurisdiction of the Kogi State High Court to entertain the suit.

9. Five Chinese nationals, in connivance with a top Nigerian Customs officer and a colonel in the Nigerian Army, engaged in undervaluation of goods at the dry port in Kano State in January, 2012. They also smuggled goods into Nigeria. When the men of the Nigerian Police Force detected their illegal activities, they arrested them and charged them to court in July 2015. Two of the Chinese were charged to the Upper Area Court Kano while three of them were charged to the Chief Magistrates Court in Kano respectively. At the commencement of their trials, their counsel objected to the jurisdiction of both courts on the ground that they were foreigners, and therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Upper Area Court and Chief Magistrates Court, Kano. They also contended that the offences of smuggling and undervaluation of goods were statute barred, the proceedings having not begun within 3 years of the commission of the offences. The courts overruled them on both grounds and proceeded with the trials. The colonel who aided the Chinese to commit the offences was charged to a Court Martial presided over by a Lieutenant Colonel. The Court Martial was convened through an oral announcement made by the General Officer Commanding that Division during a ceremony. The colonel was tried, convicted and sentenced to demotion in rank. He had appealed to the High Court of Kano State on three grounds, viz: (i) that the court lacked jurisdiction because it was not properly constituted in that a Lt. Col. presided over the proceedings, (ii) that the court was not properly convened and (iii) that the judgment of the court martial was not signed by the members, and that the waiting member did not vote in favor of the judgment as he was absent on the day it was delivered.

Answer the following questions using statutory and judicial authorities.

A.      Comment on the jurisdiction of the Court Martial in relation to the personnel’s.

B.      Comment on the jurisdiction of the Court Martial in relation to the manner in which it was convened.

C.      Comment on the objection that the judgment of the Court Martial was not signed by the members and the non-voting of the waiting member.

D.     Comment on the trial of the Chinese before the Upper Area Court and Magistrate’s Court respectively.

E.      What would be your position assuming that both the Custom officer and the Colonel who aided in the smuggling were both charged before the Court Martial?

F.       Assuming some of the defendants  were convicted in (E) above can such persons be tried again before the regular court?

10. Members of a Movement desiring freedom to self-determination within the Nigerian State have joined forces together to overthrow the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through the use of force. They have maimed and killed the citizens of Nigeria and destroyed properties worth billions of Naira. They started from Maiduguri, Borno State in 2009. They have carried out their activities in Adamawa and Yobe States. Some of them were arrested in Lagos State, Banga Mayana; Kudus Keyina, Musola Yangashi, Abibab Fubu aged 14 years and Kanyare Ribona aged 14 years allegedly planning to bomb an Estate. Among them were two children of 14 years of age. There has been a lot of pressure from the citizens to charge them to court but the government seems to lack the political will to do that. Some Civil Liberties Organizations have sent a petition to the Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, to try the suspects. In reaction to the petition, the Federal Government of Nigeria has charged the suspects to the Lagos State High Court, for offences of treason and treasonable felonies. The Counsel representing the defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that the children cannot be tried together with the adults and that the offences having been committed in 2009, should have been tried in 2011. It was, also, contended, finally, that the Federal High Court, and not the Lagos State High Court, has the jurisdiction to try the offences disclosed in the Information.

Based on the scenario above answer the following question susing judicial and statutory authorities:

A.      Comment on the propriety of the petition filed by Civil Liberties Organisation to the office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court.

B.      Comment on the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case filed by the Federal Government.

C.      Comment on the propriety or otherwise of the trial of all the suspects before the Lagos State High Court.

D.     Comment on whether or not the matter has become statute barred.

E.      Comment on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to entertain matters arising from Nigeria and the procedure for commencement of action before the court.

CASES TO READ

1.      IBORI  V. F.R.N (2009) 3 NWLR (PT 1128) 283

2.      ABIOLA V. F.R.N (1995) 3 NWLR (PT 382) 203

3.      MAYAKI V. REG. YABA MAG COURT. (1990)2 NWLR (PT 130) 43

4.      OKORO V. NIG. ARMY (2000)3 NWLR (PT 647) 91

5.      MODUPE V. STATE (1988) 4 NWLR (PT 87) 130

6.      GUOBADIA V. STATE (2004) 6 NWLR(PT 869) 360

7.      R V. OLADIMEJI (1964) NMLR 31

8.      OBISI V.CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF (2004) 11 NWLR (PT. 885) 482

STATUTES.

1.      SECTION 251 , 1999 CONSTITUTION

2.      SECTIONS 131-146 ARMED FORCES ACT

3.      SECTIONS 19 AND 45, FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT

4.      SECTIONS 6 AND 8 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT

5.      SECTION 26 MAGISTRATES COURT LAW OF LAGOS STATE, 2009

6.      SECTIONS 24, 257(1) CPC

7.      SECTION 15 AREA COURTS LAW

8.      S.33 Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Law Enforcement & Administration Act 2003.

9.      S.14 Advanced Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act.

10.  S. 19 Economic and Financial Crime Act (EFCC).

11.  S.9 Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act.

12.  S. 26 National Drug Law and Enforcement Agency Act.

13.  S. 32 (1) Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011.

14.  S. 19 (1) Money Laundering (Prohibition)Act 2011.

15.   Childs Right Act.

For the assignments and sample presentations you should read:

a.      O. A ONADEKO: THE NIGERIAN CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER ONE.

b.     E- HAND BOOK ON CRIMINAL LITIGATION CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO).

c.      AGABA J : PRACTICAL APPROACH TO CRIMINAL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA CHAPTER FOUR

d.     AFOLAYAN A. F. CRIMINAL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA CHAPTER ONE

e.      Hambali Y.D.U : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF CRIMINAL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA. CHAPTER ONE

f.        Osamor B. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAWS AND LITIGATION PRACTICES. CHAPTER 2.