Right to be informed of the Offence Charged or Crime Alleged is provided
for in section 36(6)(a) of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which states
that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to
be informed promptly in the language that he understands and in detail of the
nature of the offence. This is the crux of arraignment where the charge against
the accused is read out and explained to him in the language he understands and
he is asked to plead to the said charge – that is whether he is guilty or not
guilty.
In similar vein, section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended) states that any person who
is arrested or detained shall be informed in writing within 24hours (and in a
language that he understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest or
detention.
This
right is so important that all procedural rules on criminal law recognize it and
make provisions for it: see section 215 of
the Criminal Procedure Act, section 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sections 3(1) & 211 of the Lagos State
Administration of Criminal Justice (Repeal & Re-enactment) Law 2011.
To
cap it all, section 6(1) of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 states that except when the
suspect is in the actual course of the commission of an offence or is pursued
immediately after the commission of an offence or has escaped from lawful
custody, the police officer or other persons making the arrest shall inform the
suspect immediately of the reason for the arrest. Failure to comply renders the trial a nullity: Yahaya v. The State.
It is
important to point out that “prompt” in the provision means at the time of
arrest or not later than the time of the arraignment. Also ‘language’ means English language and
accordingly a charge read in English need not be explained where an accused
person speaks and understands English. This right enables an accused to
adequately prepare for his defense.
Another
exception to this rule is where an accused person is informed of the nature of
a grave offence for which he was previously tried but was subsequently
convicted for a lesser offence. Indeed, by section
179(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and section 218(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the facts
proved by the prosecution cannot sustain the offence charged but establishes
the commission of a lesser offence, the court can convict for the lesser
offence without a fresh trial. The constitution does not require that he should
be informed of the nature of the lesser offence for which he was subsequently
convicted, having been informed of the nature of the grave offence. See Maja v. The State (1980) 1 NCLR 212, where
the appellate court upheld the conviction for the lesser offence of unlawfully
causing grievous harm, instead of murder. See also Nwachukwu v. The State (1986).
Other
exceptions to this right are as follows:
(a)
Where the accused is caught committing the offence.
(b)
Where the accused is pursued and arrested
immediately after committing the offence.
(c)
Where the accused escapes from lawful custody.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and
www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or
duplication of this material without express and written permission from this
site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be
used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and
www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original
content.