If you or any relative is facing Administrative panel, Tribunal or court trial, you need to take note of the following:
Publicity of Trial
Publicity of trial here means trial in a place where the public has unimpeded access. In such trial, open court shall be where the trial will take place not Judges chambers most especially where members of the public are not excluded from the trial.[1]
Presumption of innocence
Every person charged before a court of law for any offence shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established in court. To do otherwise is to ask the accused to establish his innocence.[2]
Information of crime committed
The accused shall be informed promptly in the language he understands and in details of the nature of the offence. This is in addition to the provisions of Section 35 (3) dealing with arrest and detention. Note that failure to inform the accused of the nature and/or details of an offence lesser in nature than the one charged is not fatal if the accused has been informed of the graver offence.[3]
Adequate Time and facility to prepare for defence
An accused person has right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence. The time being referred to in this subject matter relates not only to the first day to which his case is slated for the defence but also includes any other reasonable adjournment that may be sought by the defence.[4]
Note: the court may not tolerate unreasonable requests for adjournment.[5]
Where adjournment is sought to procure attendance of a witness, the accused must show:
- That the witness is material
- That he has not been guilty of neglect in procuring him
- That he can procure his attendance for a certain date.
Note: “facilities” as used in the sub-section includes making available to the accused the proof of evidence including witness statements in the case.
Right to Counsel of his own choice or defend himself
This right is simply means that a person cannot be denied a right to a counsel/lawyer of his choice neither can a counsel/lawyer be imposed on him if he chooses to defend himself. [6]
Examination of Prosecution Witnesses and present his witness
The accused has a right not only to call and examine his witnesses but also to cross-examine the witnesses called by the prosecution. This is a mandatory provision in the constitution.[7] Any contrary position will fail.
Right to Interpreter
An accused person has right to be informed promptly and in a language he understands, and in detail, the nature of the offence for which he is to be charged. Failure to provide one where one is required is fatal to the proceedings and any decision reach against you will fail.[8]
Where one is provided and found to be incompetent, any conviction based on it is liable to be quashed[9].
The provision of interpreter should be at no cost to the accused.
However, where the accused fails to inform the court of his defect in the language of the court, the trial will stand as the failure will be treated as a mere irregularity[10].
Right to silence
This right is both constitutional and statutory.[11]
NOTE: In addition to these various constitutional provisions, there is statutory provision for Mandatory Legal Representation in capital offences.
[1] S. 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution
[2] Eyu Vs. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 78) 602. Okoro Vs The State (1988) 12 SCNJ 19. Uso Vs COP (1972) 11 SC 37. See the exceptions in SS. 141 (3)(b) & 142 of the Evidence Act. See the proviso to S. 36 (5) CFRN.
[3] Sections 36(6)(a), 179 (2) CPA; 218 (2) CPC; Maja Vs. The State (1980) 1 NCR 212, Nwachukwu Vs The State (1986) 4 SC 378.
[4] See Section 36 (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Udo Vs The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 82) 316. See also Gokpa Vs. IGP (1961) 1 All NLR 423
[5] See Yanor Vs The State (1965) 1 All NLR 193; Shemfe Vs. COP (1962) NNLR 87.
[6] S 36 (6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution
[7] See Section 36 (6)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, Tulu Vs Bauchi N.A (1965) NMLR 343; Idrisu Vs. The State (1967) 1 All NLR 32.
[8] See Section 36 (6)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, Anyanwu Vs The State (2002) 13 NWLR (pt. 783) 107.
[9] Ajayi Vs Zaria N.A.(1964) NNLR 61.
[10] Udosen Vs. The State (2007) All FWLR (pt. 356) 669. See also The State Vs Gwonto (1983) 3 SC.67
[11] See– Sections. 36 (11) of the 1999 Constitution, 160 (a) of Evidence Act; 287 (1)(a) CPA; 236 (1)(a) CPC. See also Sugh Vs The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 77) 475.
During search, my expensive phones, wristwatch, gold jewelries were collected but not released after confirming my innocence.
Where a person arrested or searched is released on grounds of insufficient evidence, all articles seized from him must be released.[1]
[1] Kehinde M. Mowoe, Constitutional law in Nigeria 2008, Malthouse law books p. 408/409
Can my house/premises be searched, and on what grounds?
Except in limited circumstances, a search warrant is required to search premises. This is because as much as possible the law protects the sanctity of a home. Generally, for the premises to be searched, a search warrant must be obtained by the police. However, where a person to be arrested under a warrant of arrest is suspected of being within the premises, the premises may be searched for the person to be arrested without a search warrant.[1]
A search warrant may be issued by a magistrate when he is satisfied by information on oath and in writing that there is reasonable ground for believing that any building, ship, carriage, receptacle or place is being used for the commission of an offence[2].
The person executing the search warrant may seize such thing and carry it before the issuing magistrate or any other magistrate, to be dealt with according to law. The search warrant may also direct that the occupier of the premises where whatever is named in the search warrant is found can be arrested.[3]
A superior officer can also issue a search warrant but it must be limited to where the item to be searched is a stolen property. And where the premises is occupied by a person who within the preceding 12 months has been convicted of receiving stolen goods, harboring thieves, fraud or dishonesty and punishable by imprisonment – Such officer issued a warrant must be allowed access into the premises to be searched and where property is seized, the occupier of the premises may be arrested and brought before the magistrate to account for his possession of the goods. Where free ingress (entry) is not allowed to the person executing the search warrant, the person may break into and enter such premises in order to execute the search warrant.[4]
Furthermore, a police officer may break out of the premises after executing such warrant[5]. The person executing the search warrant may search any person within the premises whom he reasonably believes is concealing on him whatever is being searched for[6].
[1] section 7 of CPA and section 34 of CPC.
[2] section 107(1) of CPA
[3] section 107 of CPA and section 74 of CPC.
[4] section 112 and 7(2) of CPA.
[5] section 8 of CPA
[6] – section 112(3) of CPA and section 81(1) of CPC.
Can my house/home be searched in my absence?
In respect of premises, section 78(1) of CPC requires that searches must be conducted in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood summoned by the person to whom the search warrant is addressed. However, a Court or Judge may waive this provision when issuing the search warrant where the circumstances of the case so requires.
Why are police searching vehicles/things and mounting roadblocks?
A police officer may search such things as vehicle, ship, and an aircraft which may be conducted with or without a search warrant, depending on the nature of the thing to be searched.
Custom officers are empowered to search any vehicle, ship or aircraft reasonably suspected of carrying goods liable to forfeiture without a search warrant.[1]
A police officer may conduct a search of a thing which he reasonably believes contains anything unlawful and such a search can be conducted without a search warrant. This is derived from his general duty to prevent and detect the commission of crime[2].
The power to mount road block to stop and search, and the power to detain and search a vehicle reasonably suspected of conveying anything unlawful is derived from section 25 of the Police Act but does not cover power to extort money from the motorist.
[1] section 149 of the Customs and Excise Management Act
[2] section 4 of the Police Act
My neighbour lied to the police and my house was searched but nothing was found. Can I challenge it?
The position of the law is that where a person by his complaint set the law in motion against another, he will be liable to that person in court.
Where a police officer searches a premises armed with a search warrant, the person who laid a complaint before the police officer (on the basis of which the police officer lays information before a magistrate to obtain a search warrant) may render himself liable in damages to the person against whom the complaint is laid. The complainant would be held liable in damages for malicious procurement of a search warrant if he had no reasonable cause to believe in the complaint laid by him.
A complainant, who set the law in motion against a person alleged to have committed an offence, may render himself liable in damages to the alleged offender for malicious prosecution. In one case of Balogun v. Amubikahu[1], the Supreme Court rejected the contention of a person and held that although the arrest and prosecution of the respondent were undertaken by the police, the real force behind the whole action was the person. It was him who set the law in motion against the respondent by fabricating a criminal complaint which led to the arrest, detention and prosecution of the respondent.
[1] (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 18
Is abortion not related to issue of privacy?
Under our law in Nigeria, abortion is criminalized.
Any person (This covers everyone including Doctors, Boyfriends, Herbalists, parents, friends, among others) who intend to procure miscarriage of a woman whether pregnant or not, and “unlawfully administers to her or causes her to take any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, is guilty of a felony….” [1]
A woman with the intention of procuring her own miscarriage, “performs the same acts, is likewise guilty.[2]
Also, any person who unlawfully supplies or procures for anyone anything, with intention that it will be used for the miscarriage of a woman who may or may not be pregnant, is also guilty of a crime.[3]
[1] Section 228 of the Criminal Code
[2] Section 229 of the Criminal Code
[3] Section 230 of the Criminal Code
Child rights: Parental rights and Custody of child/Discipline of child in Nigeria
In Nigeria, parental rights developed from customary and common law, but are no longer relevant in cases of custody or guardianship, where the courts consider only what will best promote the child’s welfare.
Parental rights include the “rights, powers, liberties and duties, which a parent has with respect to his or her child”[1]. This parental right is covered under various international conventions guaranteeing on the rights of the child in which Nigeria is a signatory.
Under the Convention on the Right of Child, Nigeria (a State party) “…shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate, direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention”
The convention recognizes the right of the parents to the extent of that it is not contrary to the rights of a child.
The convention recognizes the right of the parents to the custody of a child only when such is not in contrary to the best interest of a child.
Parental rights to the custody of the child include the right to physical custody and to determine education, religion and other moral values of the child until he, or she reaches the age of discretion. A child cannot be made to receive religious education or instruction or take part in any religious ceremony which is not his own or approved by his parents or guardian.
This right also includes the right to the child’s services,[2] the right to discipline and chastise the child, which “recognizes the supervisory role which a parent has in respect of a child who is under his custody, care or control”[3]
Any discipline meted out by parents must not however be excessive else, it may lead to a criminal offence, depending on the circumstances.[4]
Parents have the right to consent to the marriage of their children and receive dowry under Islamic or customary law[5]
[1] J. M. Eckeedar “What are Parental Rights?” (1973
[2] Animashawun v. CT Wang 1974 11 CC HCJ 1793 quoted by E.N.U. Uzodike, Implications and Limits of Parental Rights in Nigeria, published in the African Society of International and Comparative Law, Vol.2 pt 2, p. 282
[3] E.N.U Uzodike, op. cit., p. 287
[4] Section 295 OF THE Criminal Code
[5] Osanwonyi v. Osanwonyi (1973) 3 UILR 527.
Right to privacy of communications
Generally, Nigerians have a right to privacy of their correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications. It also covers issues like telegrams, letters, or packages sent by ordinary or special post, correspondence done through internet, social media and so on. The content of the correspondence is to be viewed by the sender alone except if it is exposed in such a way that other person would know its content.
It is a criminal offence to stop, search, rob, secrete or destroy postal matter or telegram[1]. Every attempt to regulate social media has resulted in serious resistance because right to privacy of communication is likely to be more honored in breach.
However, Section 45 of the Constitution have made this right not absolute thereby making the police, security services etc to tamper with correspondence on grounds of interest of public security, public order, public peace among others.
[1] Section 161 and 162 of Criminal Code
My right to fair hearing (Introduction)
The right to fair hearing is also known as the principle of natural justice encapsulated in the two traditional latin maxims: audi alterem patem and nemo judex in causa sua. The right to fair hearing entails the following:
Easy access to the court/Tribunal
Where any of these is lacking, there is absence of fair hearing[1].
Audi alterem patem simply means that the accused be given opportunity to be heard[2] while Nemo judex in causa sua principle demands that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The question here is not whether the judge was biased in fact. Rather, it is whether a detached onlooker looking at what the court or judge has done will have the impression that the judge was biased.[3]
The adjudicator must not be interested in any of the parties or the subject matter by virtue of his relationship with any of them or the outcome of the proceedings[4]. If the person deciding your fate is related or appointed by your accusers, there may be element of bias whether in court or at any administrative panel.
[1] See Effiom Vs. The State (1995) 1 NWLR (pt. 373) 507.
[2] See S.287 CPA. See Otapo Vs. Sunmonu (1987) 5 SCNJ 57.
[3] Ajibaiye Vs. Ajibaiye (2007) All FWLR (pt. 359) 1321.
[4] See Garba Vs. Uni-Maid (1986) 1 NSCC 245; Yabugbe Vs. COP (1992) 4 NWLR (pt. 234) 152
All I need to know when I am facing trial-Tribunal-Administrative Panel
If you or any relative is facing Administrative panel, Tribunal or court trial, you need to take note of the following:
Publicity of Trial
Publicity of trial here means trial in a place where the public has unimpeded access. In such trial, open court shall be where the trial will take place not Judges chambers most especially where members of the public are not excluded from the trial.[1]
Presumption of innocence
Every person charged before a court of law for any offence shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established in court. To do otherwise is to ask the accused to establish his innocence.[2]
Information of crime committed
The accused shall be informed promptly in the language he understands and in details of the nature of the offence. This is in addition to the provisions of Section 35 (3) dealing with arrest and detention. Note that failure to inform the accused of the nature and/or details of an offence lesser in nature than the one charged is not fatal if the accused has been informed of the graver offence.[3]
Adequate Time and facility to prepare for defence
An accused person has right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence. The time being referred to in this subject matter relates not only to the first day to which his case is slated for the defence but also includes any other reasonable adjournment that may be sought by the defence.[4]
Note: the court may not tolerate unreasonable requests for adjournment.[5]
Where adjournment is sought to procure attendance of a witness, the accused must show:
Note: “facilities” as used in the sub-section includes making available to the accused the proof of evidence including witness statements in the case.
Right to Counsel of his own choice or defend himself
This right is simply means that a person cannot be denied a right to a counsel/lawyer of his choice neither can a counsel/lawyer be imposed on him if he chooses to defend himself. [6]
Examination of Prosecution Witnesses and present his witness
The accused has a right not only to call and examine his witnesses but also to cross-examine the witnesses called by the prosecution. This is a mandatory provision in the constitution.[7] Any contrary position will fail.
Right to Interpreter
An accused person has right to be informed promptly and in a language he understands, and in detail, the nature of the offence for which he is to be charged. Failure to provide one where one is required is fatal to the proceedings and any decision reach against you will fail.[8]
Where one is provided and found to be incompetent, any conviction based on it is liable to be quashed[9].
The provision of interpreter should be at no cost to the accused.
However, where the accused fails to inform the court of his defect in the language of the court, the trial will stand as the failure will be treated as a mere irregularity[10].
Right to silence
This right is both constitutional and statutory.[11]
NOTE: In addition to these various constitutional provisions, there is statutory provision for Mandatory Legal Representation in capital offences.
[1] S. 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution
[2] Eyu Vs. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 78) 602. Okoro Vs The State (1988) 12 SCNJ 19. Uso Vs COP (1972) 11 SC 37. See the exceptions in SS. 141 (3)(b) & 142 of the Evidence Act. See the proviso to S. 36 (5) CFRN.
[3] Sections 36(6)(a), 179 (2) CPA; 218 (2) CPC; Maja Vs. The State (1980) 1 NCR 212, Nwachukwu Vs The State (1986) 4 SC 378.
[4] See Section 36 (6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Udo Vs The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 82) 316. See also Gokpa Vs. IGP (1961) 1 All NLR 423
[5] See Yanor Vs The State (1965) 1 All NLR 193; Shemfe Vs. COP (1962) NNLR 87.
[6] S 36 (6)(C) of the 1999 Constitution
[7] See Section 36 (6)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, Tulu Vs Bauchi N.A (1965) NMLR 343; Idrisu Vs. The State (1967) 1 All NLR 32.
[8] See Section 36 (6)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, Anyanwu Vs The State (2002) 13 NWLR (pt. 783) 107.
[9] Ajayi Vs Zaria N.A.(1964) NNLR 61.
[10] Udosen Vs. The State (2007) All FWLR (pt. 356) 669. See also The State Vs Gwonto (1983) 3 SC.67
[11] See– Sections. 36 (11) of the 1999 Constitution, 160 (a) of Evidence Act; 287 (1)(a) CPA; 236 (1)(a) CPC. See also Sugh Vs The State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 77) 475.