GAMBO ABUBAKAR V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2020)

Background

Gambo Abubakar was prosecuted before the Federal High Court, Jos Division, together with another accused person, on a three-count charge arising under section 518 of the Criminal Code Act and section 15(2) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2004. The appellant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty to all three counts, underwent trial, and was convicted and sentenced. He challenged the decision before the Court of Appeal, principally arguing that the arraignment was defective and that the trial court had not complied with the requirements governing the reading and explanation of the charge. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court on the same essential complaint.

The Supreme Court focused on the trial record concerning the arraignment. The record stated: “Charge is read to the accused persons in English Language and interpreted from English to Hausa and the accused persons acknowledge they understand the charge.” It further recorded that the first and second accused persons pleaded not guilty to each of the three counts. The appellant was represented by counsel at the time, but no objection was raised to the form or manner of the arraignment before the trial proceeded.

Issue

The central issue was whether, from the record of proceedings, the appellant had been properly arraigned before his trial, conviction and sentence, such that the Court of Appeal was entitled to affirm the trial court’s decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a valid trial is founded on a valid arraignment. Arraignment requires the accused to be brought before the court, confronted with the charge, and called upon to answer it. Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, read together with section 33(6) of the 1999 Constitution, requires that the charge be read and explained to the accused in a language he understands before his plea is taken. The accused should ordinarily be brought before the court unfettered, unless the court orders otherwise, and the court must ensure that the accused understands the nature of the accusation.

However, the Court distinguished between a substantive failure that causes injustice and a merely formal omission in the wording of the court’s record. Although it is good practice for a trial judge to record expressly that the charge was read and explained to the accused to the court’s satisfaction, the absence of those exact words does not automatically nullify the proceedings. The record must be considered as a whole. Where it shows that the charge was read, interpreted into a language understood by the accused, and acknowledged as understood, the constitutional and procedural purpose of arraignment has been fulfilled.

The Court also reaffirmed that an unambiguous plea, including a plea of not guilty, is valid where the accused understands the process and responds personally to the charge. Plea-taking must occur before the commencement of trial; failure to take a plea at all before trial would vitiate the entire proceedings. That fatal situation was not present in this case.

Court Findings

The Court found that the record sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the law. The charge had been read in English and interpreted into Hausa, and the accused persons acknowledged that they understood it. Their pleas of not guilty were then recorded in respect of all three counts. The fact that the pleas were recorded jointly or in a reported form, rather than separately in direct speech, did not make the arraignment invalid because the pleas were clear, unequivocal and attributable to the accused persons.

The Court further held that an appellate court is bound to determine an appeal on the record transmitted to it. Since the record was neither challenged nor shown to be inaccurate, the Supreme Court was entitled to rely on its contents. The presence of counsel and the failure to object at the time of arraignment also supported the presumption of regularity. The proper time to object to an irregular plea or arraignment is ordinarily before the trial begins, although the Court recognised that an objection may, in appropriate circumstances, be raised later.

Ejembi Eko JSC additionally criticised the presentation of what he regarded as a settled and futile complaint, describing it as an abuse of the court’s process. Counsel, as officers of the court, must not advance arguments known to be untenable or engage in conduct that adversely affects the administration of justice under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence. The arraignment was substantially regular, the pleas were valid, and no miscarriage of justice had been established.

Significance

The decision confirms that Nigerian courts will protect the statutory and constitutional safeguards attached to arraignment, but will not elevate minor recording imperfections into grounds for nullifying an otherwise fair trial. The decisive questions are whether the charge was read and explained in a language understood by the accused, whether a clear plea was taken before trial, and whether the record discloses misunderstanding or prejudice. The case also serves as a reminder to defence counsel to raise objections promptly and responsibly, rather than reserving a known complaint for appeal after an unsuccessful trial.