Ruth Adehwe Aweto V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.

The Appellant herein and one Mr. Adekanye Komolafe were provost and bursar respectively of Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan. They were arraigned before the Oyo State High Court, Ibadan charged with offences bordering on contravention of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. During the trial, the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence. The Appellant and her co-accused testified in their defence and called additional four witnesses.

At the end of the trial and in a reserved and considered judgment, the Appellant and her co-accused were each convicted under counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 and sentenced to one year imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved, she appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, where her appeal was dismissed. She has now brought this appeal. Her amended Notice of Appeal dated 28th September, 2015 and filed on the same date contains nine grounds of appeal.

1

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief of argument, settled by Oluwasina Ogungbade Esq., of counsel to the appellant was filed on the 28th September, 2015. Learned counsel initially submitted three issues for determination of this appeal. However, when the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel withdrew the first issue for determination of this appeal. The two issue left are hereunder reproduced as follows:-

1. Whether the High Court of Oyo State had the jurisdiction to try the Appellant for the offences charged particular regard being had to the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 251(1)(p) and 251(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended)
2. Whether in the absence of proof of a corrupt intent in the preparation of the budget proposals, the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof under required for the conviction of the Appellant the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.

The Respondent’s brief of argument settled by George Lawal Esq., of counsel was filed on the 24th October, 2017. Learned

2

counsel formulated two issues for determination of this appeal.

They read thus:-

(a) Whether or not the High Court of Oyo State had the jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offences charged under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 having regard to the provisions of Sections 251 (1)(p) and 251(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

(b) Whether the Prosecution had proved corrupt intent as an ingredient of the offence created under the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 to ground a convention.

Appellant filed a reply brief on 30th October, 2017. Before I delve into the submissions of learned counsel, I wish to set out in brief the facts that gave rise to this appeal, which are in my view simple and straight forward. The Appellant herein was the provost of Federal Cooperative College Ibadan. Mr. Adekanye Komolafe was the bursar of the same college. The two of them prepared and submitted nominal rolls and Budget proposals for the staff of the college for 2006, wherewith they presented 41 casual staff as permanent staff.

3

As a result of such presentation to the Federal Government, the sum of N7,041,861.15 was released every year as salaries and emoluments for the 41 casual staff, whereas the actual amount that was paid to the causal staff was N3,690,000.00 only.

In arguing the second issue, which is now the first issue, by virtue of the withdrawal of the first issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that Section 251 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria confers criminal jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in respect of matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 251 (1) of the same Constitution. According to the learned counsel, one of the areas over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction are matters involving the administration, management and control of the Federal Government and its agencies. It is the view of the learned counsel that the conduct forming the basis of the charge against the Appellant was in the performance of her duty as the provost of the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan, an agency of the Federal Government, as such only the Federal High Court could validly try the offences

4

alleged to have been committed as reflected on the charge.

Section 251 (1)(a) and (p) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:-

“251 (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters –

(a) Relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the said Government is a party;

(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any or its agencies.”

It is true that the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan is an agency of the Federal Government. The exclusive jurisdiction donated to the Federal High Court is in respect of civil causes and matters relating to those items set out in Subsection (1)(a-s) of Section 251 of the

5

Constitution. Section 251(3) of the same Constitution is very clear. It provides as follows:-

“251 (3) The Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by Subsection (1) of this Section.”

The word Exclusive is clearly absent in Section 251 (3) of the 1999 Constitution. I therefore agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent where he stated in argument that if the framers of the Constitution had intended that the Federal High Court should have exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters relating to the revenue of the Federal Government of Nigeria, they would have said so in clear words.

In the case of Attorney General of Ondo State vs The Attorney General of the Federation, the Attorney General of Ondo State, by an originating summons filed at the Supreme Court, asked for among other reliefs the following:-

1. A determination of the question whether or not the Attorney-General of the Federation or any person authorized by him can lawfully initiate legal proceedings in any Court of law in Ondo State in respect of any of the

6

criminal offences created by any of the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other related Offences Act 2000.

2. A declaration that the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 is not in force as law in Ondo State.
3. A determination that it is not lawful for the Attorney-General of the Federation or any person authorized by him to initiate legal proceedings in any Court of law in Ondo State in respect of the criminal offences purported to be created by the provisions of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offence Act, 2000.

The full Court of this Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that, by virtue of Section 174 (1) and 286 (1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the Attorney-General of the Federation or any person authorized by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) can lawfully initiate or authorise the initiation of criminal proceedings in any Court other than a Court martial in any state of the Federation in respect of offences created by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000. At page 419 paragraphs A – B, their Lordships had this to say:-

“The Attorney-General of

7

the Federation derives his powers under Section 174 of the Constitution as an agency of the Federal Government. The law is well established that the Court cannot control the manner he exercises his powers so conferred …… nor can he be prevented from exercising his functions on the grounds that his jurisdiction does not extend to any particular state in Nigeria. Section 174 of the Constitution does not impose any such limitation.” See The State vs Ilori (1983) 1 SCNLR 94.

Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences says among other things that it shall be the duty of the ICPC to prosecute offenders. However, Section 26 (2) of the same Act provides inter alia that every prosecution for an offence under the Act shall be deemed to be initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation. It follows therefore that any criminal case initiated by the ICPC, is infact initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

It will appear that the learned counsel for the Appellant has either failed to understand the decision in Attorney-General Ondo State vs Attorney-General Federation (supra) or he has deliberately brought this issue to

8

test the patience of this Court. If learned counsel wants the Court to depart from its decision, he has not properly placed his wishes before this Court. For this Court has clearly stated that the State High Courts and the FCT High Court which are designated by the Chief Judges under Section 61 (3) of the Act for hearing of cases bordering on offences created by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, have the requisite jurisdiction to hear such cases. In the instant case, the High Court of Oyo State has jurisdiction to hear this case. The Lower Court was therefore right to so hold. Issue one is therefore resolved against the Appellant. The 9th ground of appeal upon which this issue was formulated is hereby dismissed.

The 3rd issue for determination, which is now the 2nd issue is whether in the absence of proof of a corrupt intent in the preparation of the budget proposals, the prosecution successfully discharged the burden of proof required for the conviction of the Appellant under the provisions of Section 17(1)(c) of the Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act 2000 The Appellant was accused of having made false representation in

9

the budgetary proposals of the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan for the year 2006 with the intention that her principal, the Federal Government of Nigeria would act on those false representations. Specifically the Appellant was accused of presenting 41 casual staff of the Federal Cooperative College, Ibadan as permanent staff as a result of which the Federal Government released the sum of N7,041,816.15 as the benefits and emoluments of the said staff, when in reality they were as casual staff entitled to N3,690,000.00 only.

The Appellant’s defence as reflected in the Appellant’s brief of argument are reproduced hereunder as follows:-

(i)That the 41 casual staff had already been interviewed by the Respondent preparatory to their conversion to permanent staff and that the decision to include them as permanent staff was based upon the recommendation of the interview panel.

(ii) That prior to her assumption of office as the provost of the college, the said 41 casual staff had already been represented via Exhibit 83 (the handover note of her predecessor in office) to the Respondent as permanent staff.

(iii) That the proposed conversion

10

was delayed owing to policy of the government on employment.

(iv) There was a short fall of staff salary of over N9,000.00 million in 2004.

(v) That the difference between the amount released by the Federal Government as emolument of the casual staff and the amount actually paid to them was used to defray the short fall in staff salary from 2004.

By the Appellant’s defence as reproduced above, the Appellant admitted that the 41 casual staff which she represented in the budget were yet to be converted to permanent staff as at the time the budget proposals were submitted to the Federal Government. She also admitted that she was aware that Exhibit 83, the handover note did not disclose the true status of the 41 casual workers, and that is why they were subjected to interview with a view to converting them to permanent staff. Finally she admitted that the difference between the actual money paid to the 41 casual staff and the money received from the Federal Government was used to offset outstanding salaries of other staff, which is not the purpose for which the money was requested for in the budget. All these admissions were not disclosed to the

11

Federal Government when the budget proposals were submitted.

The facts admitted by the Appellant represent the allegation against her for which she was arraigned before the trial Court. The law is settled beyond any argument that admitted facts require no further proof. See NNPC vs Klifco (Nig.) Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 209; Ikare Community Bank vs. Ademuwagun (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.924) 275; Ogolo vs. Fubara (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt.831) 231; Adeleke v. Aserifa (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.30) 575; Nonye vs. Anyichie (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.101) 110.

Learned counsel for the Appellant argued forcefully that the learned trial Judge failed to advert to the fact that the defences so enumerated negated any corrupt intention on the part of the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the Court of Appeal incorrectly held that the prosecution established the required mensrea for a conviction on the offence charged. In a further argument, learned counsel submitted that the Lower Court was wrong to have affirmed the conviction of the Appellant when the evidence led before the trial Court negated any corrupt intention.

Section 17 (i)(c) of the Corrupt Practices and Other

12

Related Offences Act 2000 provides as follows:-

“17 (i) any person who corruptly

(a)……..

(b)……..

(c) knowingly gives to any agent, or being an agent knowingly uses with intent to deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested and which contains any statement which is false or erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead his principal or any other person, is guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to five years imprisonment.”

From the provision of Section 17 (1)(c) which I have reproduced hereinabove, for the prosecution to succeed, it must prove that the accused knowingly deceived his principal or intended to deceive his principal by presenting a document in which the principal is interested in and that the document contains false material. A man’s intention can only be established by circumstances and facts leading to the commission of the crime for which he is charged. It is very difficult to

13

know what a man intends without resorting to chains of events that culminated into the acts complained of. It is only God and perhaps the devil whose powers are beyond human comprehension that will know a man’s intention. Intent is defined in Wager vs Pro C.A 603 F, 2d 1005 as a mental attitude which can seldom be proved by direct evidence, but must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. Also in State vs Gantt 26 NC, App. 554 intent is defined as a state of mind existing at the time a person commits an offence and may be shown by act, circumstances and inferences deducible therefrom. See State v. Evans 219 Kan 548 P.2d 772, 777. From the facts of this case, the Appellant and the Bursar of the college knew that the 41 casual staff were not permanent staff. This is clearly admitted by the Appellant who said because of that knowledge, they interviewed the 41 casual staff with a view to converting them to permanent staff.

I therefore do not see the rationale behind learned counsel’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove that the Appellant had the necessary intention to commit the offence for which she was charged. The

14

Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Section 17(1)(c) does not suggest that money lost as a result of the receipt or misrepresentation must be recovered from an accused before she could be found guilty of the offence. Mere deception and presentation of false and erroneous or defective material by a person with intent to mislead his principal or any other person is enough. The omission of the word corruptly from the reproduction and consideration of the provision of Section 17 (1)(c) by the Court of Appeal has not affected the quality of its judgment.

I have also read through the reply brief and I have found that it contains argument canvassed in the Appellant’s brief of argument. The essence of a reply brief is not to reopen argument already canvassed. It is to reply to new issues that have arisen in the Respondent’s brief of argument. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not convinced me to overturn the decision of the Lower Court on this issue, which I resolve against the Appellant.

Having resolved the two issues submitted for the determination of this appeal against the Appellant, this appeal shall be and it is

15

hereby dismissed.

The decision of the Lower Court is accordingly affirmed.

---

SC.584/2015