FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. ALH. ABUBAKAR MAISHANU & ORS
(2019) LPELR-46380(SC)
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 25th day of January, 2019
SC.51/2015
Before Their Lordships
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD – Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI – Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN – Justice of The Supreme
Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI – Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO – Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA – Appellant(s)
AND
ALH. ABUBAKAR MAISHANU & ORS – Respondent(s)
Other Citations
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Criminal Law and Procedure.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting
in Sokoto State. The facts of the case are that the 3rd
respondent, as an accused person, was arraigned before the Federal
High Court, holden at Gusau, on the 16th day of December, 2011 charged
with money laundering offence punishable under Section 7 (2)(b) of the
Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006. He pleaded not
guilty to the charge. On the 24th of January, 2012, the 3rd respondent
was granted bail in the sum of N5m (Five Million Naira only) and two
sureties, each, in the like sum.
The 1st and 2nd respondents(at the Supreme Court) stood sureties for
the 3rd respondent and each entered into a Bail Bond in the stated sum
of five million naira in fulfillment of the bail conditions. Upon
execution of bail recognizance by the sureties (1st and 2nd
respondents), the 3rd respondent was released from custody. In
the course of trial, the case came up on the 28th of March, 2013, for
continuation but the 3rd respondent failed to appear in Court.
Further, neither the 1st nor the 2nd of the respondents was in
Court to explain the absence of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter,
the operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
in execution of the arrest warrant granted by the Federal High Court,
arrested the 3rd respondent and took him to Court on the 29th of
April, 2013. The Federal High Court ordered the 3rd respondent to go
back to custody. He remained in custody until judgment was delivered
on the 13th day of June, 2013, whereby he was discharged and acquitted
of the charge preferred against him.
Meanwhile, the prosecution made an instant oral application for the
forfeiture of the bail bond. The learned trial judge directed,
however, that the prosecution should better file a formal application
to that effect, if desirable. The prosecution filed a Motion on Notice
on 2/07/13 for forfeiture of the bail bond/recognizance and joined all
the three present respondents as respondents to the
application. In the course of hearing, the said application (of
28/6/13), the appellant’s learned counsel applied to the learned trial
judge to order for the appearance of the 3rd respondent for
cross-examination. The 3rd respondent was the deponent to his own
counter affidavit in the matter. The learned trial judge refused to
grant the application stating that its grant would cause delay in the
proceedings. The learned trial judge dismissed the application for
forfeiture of bail bond/recognizance filed by the appellant. Appellant
appealed to the Court of Appeal against the two decisions of the
Federal High Court. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3rd
December, 2014, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the
Federal High Court.
Further dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The Court determined the appeal on these issues couched as follows:
1. Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal is supportable by the
evidence contained in the printed record before their lordships.
2. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case, whether
the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have relied
on the Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd edition) and the judicial
authority of A. G. Federation v. Thadue Teixera De Fritas & Ors
(CA/L/193/85) to dismiss the appeal.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and rightly
applied the provision of Section 107 of the Evidence Act, 2011 in the
instant case.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly
dismissed same.
