FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. ALHAJI SULE LAMIDO (2026)

Background

Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Alhaji Sule Lamido concerned the proper constitution of a criminal appeal and the territorial jurisdiction of a Federal High Court after a criminal case had been transferred from one judicial division to another for security reasons. The respondent, the first defendant, was initially arraigned with seven other defendants before the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, on charges involving conspiracy and money laundering. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) later applied to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for the transfer of the case to Abuja because a large and hostile crowd had gathered around the Kano court during the arraignment, creating serious security concerns for the defendants, judicial officers, prosecution and members of the public.

The Chief Judge approved the transfer from Kano to Abuja. The charge was subsequently amended, and the prosecution called seventeen witnesses and tendered numerous documentary exhibits. After the prosecution closed its case, the respondent and the other defendants filed a no-case submission. The Federal High Court, Abuja, overruled the submission. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, but his notice of appeal named only himself and the Federal Republic of Nigeria; it did not list the other defendants as respondents. The Court of Appeal nevertheless entertained the appeal, held that the Abuja Judicial Division lacked territorial jurisdiction, struck out the charge and discharged the respondent. The Federal Republic of Nigeria appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent’s failure to include the other defendants in his notice of appeal rendered the appeal incompetent.
2. Whether the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division had jurisdiction after the Chief Judge transferred the case from Kano for security reasons.
3. Whether some element of the offences had to occur in Abuja before the Abuja Division could validly try the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. On the first issue, the Court held that a criminal appeal is personal and individualized. Its primary purpose is to identify the appellant, the respondent, the decision challenged and the grounds of appeal. A sole appellant is not required to include co-accused persons who are not affected by the appeal. A criminal appeal is by way of rehearing, but that does not make it a retrial of every person involved in the original proceedings.

The Court distinguished the civil appeal provisions in Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 from the criminal appeal provisions in Order 17. Order 7, being contained in Part 2, applies to civil appeals, whereas Order 17 governs criminal appeals. Order 17 does not require every defendant at trial to be listed as an appellant or respondent in a criminal notice of appeal. The respondent’s notice was therefore competent. However, the Court emphasized that a joint notice of appeal in a criminal matter is impermissible and incurably defective because each accused person’s appeal concerns his or her individual rights.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction throughout the Federation under section 19(1) of the Federal High Court Act. Judicial divisions are administrative divisions created by the Chief Judge and do not destroy the Federal High Court’s nationwide jurisdiction. The Chief Judge has exclusive administrative authority to assign, withdraw and transfer cases between divisions.

Under section 98(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the Chief Judge may transfer a case where the transfer will promote the ends of justice or serve the interests of public peace. Section 93(2) recognizes that although a charge ordinarily should be filed and tried where the offence was committed, it may be tried elsewhere for security reasons. Section 98(2) restricts the transfer power after the prosecution has called witnesses; in this case, the transfer occurred before trial commenced.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the security circumstances described by the EFCC justified the transfer. The respondent failed to produce evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity under section 168(1) of the Evidence Act. The fact that the Chief Judge approved the transfer shortly after the application did not, without more, establish non-compliance with the statutory procedure. Speculation could not displace the presumption that official and judicial acts were properly performed.

The Court further held that, once a case is validly transferred under the statutory power of the Chief Judge, section 387 of the ACJA requires the receiving division to try and determine the case. The receiving court’s jurisdiction derives from the valid transfer order and not solely from the place where the alleged offence occurred. Consequently, it was unnecessary to prove that an element of the money-laundering offences occurred in Abuja.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ordered that the case be returned to the Federal High Court, Abuja, for continuation and conclusion. The appeal was allowed unanimously.

Significance

The decision clarifies that criminal appeals are party-specific and that co-accused need not be joined where their rights are not in issue. It also confirms the broad nationwide jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the Chief Judge’s power to transfer criminal proceedings to protect public peace, ensure security and preserve the integrity of a fair trial. The judgment demonstrates that statutory transfer powers operate as an exception to ordinary territorial trial rules and that a valid transfer cannot be invalidated merely because the alleged criminal conduct occurred outside the receiving division.