By Isah Bala Garba
Today’s juridical survey shall majorly focus on the procedural aspect of this decision, with less emphasis on the facts, as the facts themselves are not unusual. It is a typical case of armed robbery and unlawful possession of firearms involving multiple accused persons. They were nine (9) in number, all charged together in what is known as a “joint trial.”
However, one striking feature stood out: the 9th accused person was never found throughout the trial. Only the 1st to 8th accused persons were arrested, arraigned, and made to face trial. Yet, at the point of judgment, the learned trial judge held that he found “all the accused” guilty of the offence charged and accordingly sentenced them to death by hanging.
Now, that singular statement, “all the accused,” set in motion the entire procedural controversy. The 5th accused person appealed.
At the Court of Appeal, Yola Judicial Division, the present respondent (who was the appellant at that court) raised a fundamental issue: whether convicting a person in absentia one who was never present for arraignment, whose charge was never read to him, who never took a plea, and whose plea was never recorded would not render the entire proceedings a nullity.
Surprisingly, the Court of Appeal found the argument convincing and answered the question in the negative. It held that since the charge contained the names of nine (9) accused persons, the trial was a joint trial, and the absence of the 9th accused person throughout the proceedings ipso facto nullified the entire trial. In effect, the proceedings against the eight others were also rendered a nullity, and the matter was ordered to be sent back to the Chief Judge of Adamawa State for reassignment to another judge, other than the earlier judge, for a fresh accelerated trial.
The State (Appellant) was, however, dissatisfied and questioned how that could be the law. Indeed, that could hardly be the law. In light of this, the State approached the Supreme Court.
Before delving into the central issue, the Supreme Court, per Idris, J.S.C., while delivering the lead judgment, first addressed a procedural misstep by the State’s counsel, namely the improper couching of an omnibus ground of appeal. The appellant’s ground one (1) had complained that the judgment of the lower court was “against the weight of evidence.” At first glance, that sounds perfectly fine, right? But that applies only in civil litigation.
My Lord made it clear that although there is also an omnibus ground in criminal appeals, it is not the same as that in civil matters.
In civil appeals, the omnibus ground is properly couched as:
“The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”
This is so because civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities, where the court weighs evidence on an imaginary scale.
However, in criminal appeals, the law is different. The burden is not on a balance of probabilities, but beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the omnibus ground must be couched differently, such as:
“The decision is unreasonable, unwarranted, and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence,”
or
“The judgment is against the evidence.”
The rationale is simple and settled: importing the phrase “weight of evidence” into criminal appeals invites the court to determine a criminal case using civil standards, which is fundamentally wrong and contrary to Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act.
Accordingly, My Lord had no hesitation in holding that the appellant’s ground one of appeal, being one complaining of weight of evidence in a criminal matter, constituted a serious coup de grâce to the competency of the said ground. It was, in his words, not arguable, as it was incompetent. It was therefore struck out.
Having cleared that procedural quagmire, the court then turned to the main issue: the net effect of the absence of the 9th accused person. The Supreme Court approached the issue with precision: when does a joint trial truly arise? Is it merely when names are listed on a charge sheet, or when accused persons are actually present, arraigned, heard, and subjected to the jurisdiction of the court?
The answer, as settled by the court, is the latter. Joint trial is not born on paper; it is born in the courtroom.
The 9th accused person, as revealed by the record, was marked “at large” (i.e., nowhere to be found). He was never arrested, never brought before the court, never arraigned, and never took a plea. In the eyes of the law, no trial ever commenced against him.
As we all know, arraignment is the foundation of every criminal trial. It requires, concurrently:
Failure of any of these renders the trial a nullity, but only in respect of that accused person.
Therefore, the Supreme Court found it flabbergasting that the Court of Appeal would hold that the absence of a person who was never part of the trial could invalidate proceedings against those who were properly before the court.
