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

Background

Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Alhaji Sule Lamido concerned an interlocutory criminal appeal arising from a prosecution for money laundering and conspiracy. The respondent was the third of eight defendants originally arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, on a 28-count charge under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004. Following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court transferred the case from Kano to the Abuja Judicial Division for security reasons. The charge was subsequently amended to 37 counts under the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.

At trial, the prosecution called 17 witnesses and tendered a substantial body of documentary evidence. After the prosecution closed its case, the respondent and the other defendants made no-case submissions. On 19 September 2022, the Federal High Court overruled the respondent’s no-case submission. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. That court held that the Abuja Judicial Division lacked territorial jurisdiction because the alleged offences were not shown to have occurred in Abuja. It struck out the charge and discharged the respondent.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal raised questions concerning the proper parties to a criminal appeal, the validity of the transfer from Kano to Abuja, the effect of that transfer on territorial jurisdiction, and whether any element of the alleged offences had to occur in the receiving division.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent’s notice of appeal was defective because it did not name the other defendants as respondents.
2. Whether the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division acquired jurisdiction over the case after its transfer from Kano for security reasons.
3. Whether it was necessary to establish that an element of the alleged offences occurred in Abuja.

The Supreme Court reformulated the issues to ensure clarity and proper determination of the appeal, reaffirming its power to accept, reject or modify issues proposed by the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. On criminal appeals, the Court held that an appeal is individualised or personalised. A person appeals against the decision that directly affects him; the appeal is not a retrial of every defendant involved in the original prosecution. Accordingly, a sole appellant is not required to list unaffected co-accused as parties to the appeal. The omission of the other defendants’ names from the respondent’s notice of appeal was therefore not an irregularity affecting the competence or merits of the appeal.

The Court distinguished between civil and criminal appeals. Although joint notices of appeal may be permissible in civil matters, a joint notice of appeal is not allowed in criminal proceedings. Such a notice would be incurably defective because it could improperly invite the appellate court to determine the rights of co-accused who had not individually invoked its jurisdiction. Order 17 rules 1–5 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, rather than the provisions applicable to civil appeals, governs the filing of criminal appeals and permits an individual aggrieved person to commence an appeal personally or through a legal representative.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that section 19 of the Federal High Court Act gives the Federal High Court jurisdiction throughout Nigeria, while the Chief Judge may divide the Federation into judicial divisions for administrative and procedural purposes. Under section 98(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Chief Judge may transfer a case from one court to another where the transfer will promote the ends of justice or serve the interests of public peace. Security concerns fall squarely within that statutory power.

Section 93(2) of the ACJA establishes the ordinary rule that a criminal charge should be filed and tried where the alleged offence was committed, but expressly permits departure from that rule for security reasons. Once a case is validly transferred, section 387 ACJA directs that it be tried and determined in the division to which it has been transferred. The receiving court’s jurisdiction then derives from the transfer order, not from the geographical location of the alleged criminal acts. It was consequently unnecessary to prove that an element of the offences occurred in Abuja.

Court Findings

The Court found that the respondent had not proved that the Chief Judge failed to comply with the investigative procedure required by section 98 of the ACJA before ordering the transfer. The argument that compliance was impossible because the transfer occurred only a few days after the application was speculative. Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 applied: where an official or judicial act appears to have been performed in a substantially regular manner, the formal requirements for its validity are presumed to have been satisfied until the contrary is proved.

The Court also emphasised that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court possesses exclusive administrative authority to assign, reassign, withdraw and transfer cases between divisions of the Federal High Court. That power is supported by section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, section 254 of the Constitution, the ACJA and the Federal High Court Rules. Neither the parties nor another judicial officer can confer or remove jurisdiction, but the statute itself authorised the transfer and supplied the jurisdiction of the receiving division.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had struck out the charge and discharged the respondent. It held that the Abuja Judicial Division had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings after the valid security-based transfer from Kano. The case was remitted to the Federal High Court for continuation and conclusion of the trial. The appeal was allowed unanimously.

Significance

The decision is significant for Nigerian criminal procedure because it clarifies the relationship between territorial jurisdiction and the statutory power to transfer criminal cases. It confirms that security, public peace and the ends of justice may justify transferring a case away from the place where the alleged offence occurred. It also provides an important procedural guide: criminal appeals are personal, unaffected co-accused need not be joined, and a joint criminal notice of appeal is incompetent. Finally, the judgment reinforces the presumption of regularity attached to official judicial acts and confirms the central principle that jurisdiction must come from law, while recognising that the law may authorise a receiving court to try a matter outside the original territorial location of the alleged offence.