Right to Legal Representation in a Trial for a Capital Offence

This appeal borders on the constitutional right to legal representation of an accused in a trial for a capital offence.

CASE TITLE: ADAMU v. STATE (2022) LPELR-57084(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

FACTS

The appeal emanated from the Judgment of Katsina State High Court (trial Court) which convicted the Appellant of Armed robbery punishable under Section 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

​The Appellant with one other person now at large were alleged to have on or about the 31st day of December 2009, while armed with a stick and a matchet at Yandoka village and Kahi village Road of Faskari Local Government Area, Katsina State attacked and robbed Musa Garba and Isah Tsoho of the sum of N1,850.00 (One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira). The Appellant pleaded not guilty. The Respondent called five (5) witnesses and tendered four (4) Exhibits which are the alleged statement made by the Appellant in Hausa with the English Version, admitted as Exhibits A and A1, B, C, D and D1. The Appellant had denied the voluntariness of the statement. At the trial within a trial, the Appellant retracted the confessional statement and as a result, the statement was admitted by the trial court and marked as Exhibits A and B.

In his own defence, the Appellant testified as DW1. He denied committing the alleged offence and he gave an account of his arrest by some people in mufti who invited him to Faskari Police Station. He was informed that an armed robbery had taken place wherein the robber blocked the road. When he denied the allegation, he was beaten by the Police and kept in a cell in the Station.

In a considered judgment delivered on the 22nd of February 2016, the learned trial Judge found that the Respondent had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. It should be stressed that the Appellant’s plea was taken without legal representation.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant instituted the instant appeal.

The appeal borders on the constitutional right to legal representation of an accused in a trial for a capital offence.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal was determined upon the consideration of a sole issue as follows:

“Whether the conviction of the Appellant is not liable to be set aside for breach of the Appellant’s fundamental rights to fair hearing and non-compliance with the mandatory procedures prescribed by the law”.

DECISION/HELD

The Appeal was allowed. The Appellant’s conviction and sentence were set aside and the case was remitted back to the Hon. Chief Judge of Katsina State for assignment to another judge to conduct a retrial.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: What the concept of fair hearing entails; effect of breach of the right to a fair hearing
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Whether an accused person being tried for a capital offence must be represented from arraignment/plea taking to the end of the trial; effect of failure