site logo

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. CHIEF JOSHUA CHIBI DARIYE (A. (2013)

Case Digest

Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division

Coram

  • Mary U. Peter-Odili JCA (Presided)
  • Joseph Tine Tur JCA
  • Obande F. Ogbuinya JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Federal Republic of Nigeria

Respondent:

  • Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye
Suit number: CA/K/204//C/05

Background

This appeal arises from a ruling by the Federal High Court, Kaduna, regarding the prosecution of Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye, the then Governor of Plateau State, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The issues stem from charges of fraudulent activities linked to his governance. On December 6, 2004, the EFCC filed charges accusing Dariye of collecting a fraudulent Central Bank cheque amounting to N1.16 billion. At his arraignment, Dariye was not present, prompting the court to set a summons for him to address his immunity under the Nigerian Constitution.

Issues

The central questions before the court were:

  1. Whether the trial court correctly declined jurisdiction to entertain the charges against Chief Dariye, given his status as a sitting governor.
  2. How section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides immunity for certain high-ranking officials, should be interpreted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling to dismiss the charges against Dariye, emphasizing the immunity clause in section 308 of the Constitution, which states:

  1. No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person holding the specified executive positions during their tenure.
  2. Such persons shall not be arrested or imprisoned during this period.
  3. Immunity does not apply to civil actions initiated in their official capacity or where they are merely nominal parties.

Court Findings

The court determined that:

  1. Chief Dariye, as a sitting Governor, was entitled to immunity under section 308, which protects him from criminal prosecution while in office.
  2. His classification as a principal offender, rather than as a nominal party, under the charges brought against him further supported his claim to immunity.
  3. The provisions of section 308(2) were not applicable to his case since he was the primary accused and not merely a nominal party in the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the charges against Dariye, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the immunity clause designed to allow governors to perform their duties without interference from legal actions.

Significance

This ruling underscores the interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding immunity in Nigeria, leaving the door open for debate on the constitutional amendments to address perceived abuses of the immunity clause. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving high-ranking officials and their legal protections under the Constitution, highlighting the delicate balance between accountability and governance in Nigeria.