MOHAMMED DOGONYARO AUDU V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2024)

Background

This appeal concerned the conviction of Mohammed Dogonyaro Audu for criminal conspiracy and the unlawful acquisition of an interest in contracts connected with his employment, contrary to sections 12 and 26 of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act. The appellant was a Procurement Officer attached to the Economic Reform and Governance Project (ERGP), a World Bank-funded project domiciled in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation. The prosecution alleged that contracts connected with the project were awarded to AY-Quest Worldwide Ltd and Q-Bridgers Worldwide Synergy Ltd, companies in which the appellant and his co-accused had directorship and shareholding interests.

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory convicted the appellant on all ten counts, either jointly with the second accused or individually, and imposed seven-year terms of imprisonment, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal, Abuja, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, relying principally on alleged defects in the amended charge and insufficiency or inadmissibility of the prosecution’s evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the absence, or alleged mismatch, of counsel’s stamp and seal on the amended charge rendered the charge incompetent and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the prosecution proved the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt and whether the lower courts properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that failure to affix counsel’s stamp and seal to a court process generally constitutes an irregularity, not a fundamental defect. The omission does not ordinarily invalidate the process, nullify proceedings, or deprive the court of jurisdiction. In this case, the charge was filed and prosecuted by counsel in the employment of the EFCC. By virtue of section 3 of the Law Officers Act and the definition of “Law Officers” in section 494 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, such prosecuting counsel are deemed to be barristers, advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court. The NBA stamp and seal therefore served no essential validating purpose in the circumstances. At most, its absence made the process voidable or irregular, rather than void.

On conspiracy, the Court reaffirmed that the offence involves an agreement or meeting of minds and is rarely susceptible to direct evidence. It may be established by reasonable inferences drawn from the proved acts and circumstances of the accused persons. The appellant and his co-accused incorporated AY-Quest, were shareholders and directors, were co-signatories to the company’s account, worked in the relevant government office, and participated in the project. In addition, the appellant signed letters awarding contracts to the company. These facts provided a sound basis for inferring an unlawful agreement, even without relying on the co-accused’s statement.

Court Findings

The Court found that the prosecution proved the appellant’s public employment and his connection with the ERGP through his own extra-judicial statement, documents signed by him as Procurement Officer, and his oral testimony as DW1. His admission that he worked in the Office of the Accountant-General and signed contract award letters meant that those facts required no further proof.

The appellant’s challenge to his identity was also rejected. Although different variations of his names appeared in some corporate documents, account-opening records contained his photograph, signature and address. The evidence of the EFCC investigator and forensic examiner established that the signatures on the relevant documents belonged to the same person. The Court held that the evidence demonstrated his interest in both companies and his knowledge of the relevant contracts.

The Court further held that documentary evidence was particularly important in the criminal proceedings because it provided permanent and objective evidence supporting the oral testimony. Exhibits tendered without objection could generally be relied upon by the trial court. Objections to admissibility must ordinarily be raised when the document is tendered. The appellant therefore waived complaints concerning several exhibits, including the forensic documents. The Court also clarified section 104 of the Evidence Act: payment of certification fees is mandatory only where the issuing authority has prescribed fees for certified copies. Since no prescribed fee was shown for certified documents from the Accountant-General’s Office, the documents remained properly certified.

The statements of the appellant and co-accused were not confessional because they were not direct, positive and unequivocal admissions of guilt. Consequently, a trial-within-trial was unnecessary on that basis. The Court also rejected the allegation that the forensic expert was biased merely because he was an EFCC employee.

Concurrent Findings and Appellate Review

The Supreme Court emphasised that evaluation of evidence and the assignment of probative value are primarily functions of the trial court, which sees and hears the witnesses. An appellant seeking re-evaluation must demonstrate that the findings were perverse, unsupported by the evidence, reached without proper evaluation, or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Repeating arguments rejected by the lower courts is insufficient. The restraint is even stronger where the trial court and Court of Appeal have reached concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the appellant’s conviction and concurrent seven-year sentences for criminal conspiracy and deriving private benefit from contracts connected with his employment, was affirmed. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

The decision is significant for Nigerian criminal procedure and evidence law. It confirms that counsel’s stamp and seal are not ordinarily jurisdictional requirements, particularly where statutory provisions already recognise prosecuting counsel as legal practitioners. It also reinforces the importance of timely objections to documentary evidence, the limited circumstances in which certification fees are required, the evidential value of corporate and financial records, and the narrow scope of Supreme Court intervention in concurrent factual findings.