Rev. Fr. Silas C. Nweke V. The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

The Appellant alongside one Rev. Dr. E. C. Obiorah were arraigned at the Federal High Court Awka on offences bordering on conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence contrary to Sections 8(a),1(1) (b) and 3 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related offences Act, 2006. They were also charged with issuance of dud cheque, an offence punishable under Section 1 (1) (b) (1) of the Dishonoured Cheques (Offences) Act Cap DII Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2007. The Appellant and his co-accused were arraigned before the trial Court on 4th February, 2011 for their plea. The charges were read to them but they refused to enter their plea. The matter was adjourned to a later date but before that date, the appellant and his co-accused filed a notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the following grounds: –

1. The respondent has no competence and authority to institute the proceedings;
2. The arrests and detentions of the applicants upon which this proceeding is predicated is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful;

1

This charge is brought in bad faith and is a malicious criminalization of the applicants in order for the respondent’s EFCC to collect private debts from the applicants in favour of the complainants;

4. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter which is malicious conversion of a private debt collection exercise into criminal offences;
5. The arrests, detentions, undertakings and bail bonds and arraignment notices founding this proceedings, the instant charge and entire proceedings, were commenced and continued in contempt of the orders of Courts of competent jurisdiction, in suit NoA/MISC.155/2008, suit No. A/MISC.53/2009 and suit No. FHC/AWK/157/2009;
6. The present proceedings, including the charge filed herein, constitutes an abuse of Court process;
7. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the person of the applicants.
8. The respondent has no probable or reasonable cause to bring this charge against any of the applicants.
9. The entire proceedings being instituted herein are incompetent.
10. The institution and continuation of the proceedings are unconstitutional, null and void.”

2

This was backed up with an affidavit. The Respondent herein filed a counter affidavit of 18 paragraphs and a written address.

On 11th November, 2011, the learned Trial Judge delivered his ruling on the preliminary objection and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The preliminary objection was thus dismissed. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his objection, each accused filed notice of appeal at the Court below challenging the decision of the trial Court.

The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 2nd June, 2016 wherein the appeal succeeded partially and the Court below set aside the ruling of the learned trial Judge. It ordered that the case be remitted to the trial Court for trial de novo before another Judge.

Further being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the appellant has appealed to this Court vide Notice of Appeal filed on 15th June, 2016 which said notice contains five grounds of appeal. From the five grounds, the appellant has distilled four issues for the determination of this appeal. The four issues are as follows: –

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to

3

try the offences alleged in charge No. FHC/AWK/75C/2011 because they are termed Advance Fee Fraud when the purported offences arose from mere civil breach of simple contract between private individuals among themselves a subject matter the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain.

2. Whether the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) did not act outside the confines of its authority and competence by instituting the alleged Advance Fee Fraud offences against the Appellant, which offences have nothing to do with ‘Economic and Financial Crimes’ for which the EFCC was established but are mere mechanisms employed by the said EFCC to collect simple debt, allegedly owed by the Appellant to private individuals.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the advance fraud offences alleged in charge No. FHC/AWK/75C/2011 did not constitute abuse of Court process in charge No.MAW/1C/2009 alleging the same offences against the Appellant concerning the same subject matter.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in failing to quash charge No.FHC/AWK/75C/2011 which was instituted in violation of Court orders by stating that

4

no Court has the power to prevent the police or other law enforcement agencies from performing their constitutional and statutory duties.

The above issues are contained on page 4 of the Appellant’s brief filed by Dr. E. S. C. Obiorah, of counsel on 15th August, 2016 which was adopted in this Court on 12th December, 2018 when this appeal was argued.