8th May, 2015
The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Court of Appeal decision which overruled an interlocutory application by five brothers.
The Okoye brothers, Ebele, Ejike, Chizoba, Chika and Onyeka, were on May 24, 2006, arraigned by the police before an Awka Magistrates’ Court on a seven-count charge of conspiracy and assault.
The charges among others bordered on conspiracy to commit felony and serious assault on police officers and malicious damages to property.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Kumai Akaahs, held that the appellate court was wrong to have set aside the concurring decisions of the Magistrates’ Court and the Enugu High Court on the case.
Akaahs held that the appellate court erred in its decision that the appellants ought to have elected to be tried summarily or on information before the court before been entitled to the documents they requested for.
He held that “the moment an accused person is facing a charge, his personal liberty is at stake and before that liberty is taken away, he must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself.
“It is immaterial whether he elects to be tried summarily or on information.
“Once he becomes aware that he has a charge hanging on his neck for an infraction of the law that opportunity should be offered to him.
“Once he makes a request orally or in writing for any facility to prepare for his defence, the court must accede to his request and the prosecution has to comply,” he held.
The court, therefore, set aside the appellate court’s decision and ordered the police to provide the appellants with the facilities requested by their counsel at no cost to the appellants.
“The appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed,” he held.
The appellants’ counsel, Dr Ernest Obiora, had applied to the Magistrates’ Court for an order compelling the police to furnish him with documents, including police investigation and witness statements.
The police had declined to avail the defence of the documents as directed by the Magistrates’ Court.
The police, through their counsel, had argued that it was a summary trial and furnishing of relevant documents upfront was not provided for in the Criminal Procedure Law.
Not satisfied with the trial court’s decision, the prosecution proceeded to the Enugu High Court, which affirmed the Magistrates’ Court decision.
The prosecution further approached the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, challenging the High Court’s decision.
The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decisions of the two courts below and remitted the case to the trial Magistrates’ Court for the accused to take their plea before proceeding on trial.
It held that the appellants ought to have elected to be tried summarily or on information before they would be entitled to the documents they requested for to assist them in their trial.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants’ counsel proceeded to the Supreme Court via a notice of appeal dated July 15, 2011.