Uwem Essien Antia V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A. 

 This is an Appeal against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Judicial Division delivered on 18th day of November 2015 wherein the Appellants application for bail was refused and dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling the Appellant appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal dated and filed 1st December 2015 (pages 318-322) of the Record of Appeal). The Notice of Appeal contained five grounds and the grounds shone of their particulars are set out hereunder:-
GROUND 1
3.1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused to grant the Appellant bail pending trial contrary to Sections 35(1) and 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
GROUND 2
3.2 The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the alledged offences with which the Appellant is being charged is of serious nature.
GROUND 3
3.3. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“Strangely, the applicant did not deny the existence of a syndicate group and that Regan Akaiso did

1

not belong to any such group. The Applicant in paragraphs 12 (i)-(iii) of his 14 paragraph. Further Affidavit deposed to on 18th August, 2015 acknowledged the existence of Regan Akaiso and that he has filed an action against the Respondent in suit No. FHC/L/CS/856/2015 at the Federal High Court…. This is an admission against the interest of the Applicant.”
GROUND 4
3.4. The learned Trial Judge erred in law when he refused the Appellant bail on the ground that the Appellant may not come back to take his trial if he is granted bail.
GROUND 5
3.5. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Appellant did not challenge or deny the facts stated by the Respondent that the Appellant was being investigated in respect of other offences by the Nigeria Police Zone 2 Headquarters, Lagos.

From the grounds of Appeal the Appellant distilled the following.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to grant the Appellant bail pending trial on the ground that the alleged offences with which the Appellant is being charged is of serious nature contrary to Sections 35(1) and

2

36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) Grounds 1 and 2.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant is a member of a criminal syndicate and that the Appellant would prejudice ongoing investigation by the Respondent – Ground 3.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he refused to grant the Appellant bail on the ground that the Appellant may not come back to take his trial if granted bail. Ground 4
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant did not challenge or deny the facts stated by the Respondent that the Appellant was being investigated in respect of other offences by the Nigeria police Zone 2 Headquarters, Lagos – Ground 5.

The Respondent did not file any brief of argument.

ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUES.
In arguing issue 1 learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the law is trite that bail pending trial is a constitutional right of the Appellant and that the onus is on the Respondent to prove that the facts relied on by the Appellant did not warrant the granting of his bail application. It is further

3

argued by learned counsel for the Appellant that the presumption of innocence of the Appellant until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt guaranteed by Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), inures to the Appellant. Learned counsel relied on the following cases, IKHAZUAGBE v. COP (2004) 7 NWLR (pt 872) 346 at 360. LASAKI V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR 4750 (CA).

Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that since the Appellant is not yet pronounced guilty by the Court he ought to have been admitted to bail by the trial Court.

On issue 2 learned counsel for the Appellant repeats his argument under issue that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the facts relied upon by the Appellant do not warrant the grant of bail.

?It is further argued by learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned trial judge was in grave error when he arrived of the conclusion that the Appellant admitted to belonging to a criminal syndicate simply because the Appellant stated in his Affidavit of 18th August 2015 that he knew that Reagan Akaiso had filed a suit against the Respondent of the Federal

4

High Court and obtained an order against the Respondent. It is contended by the Appellant that the charge against the Appellant is a closed charge as the Respondent did not disclosed Reagan Akaiso or the person said to be of large.
Learned counsel for the Appellant finally submitted under this issue that the decision of the learned trial judge that the Appellant is a member of a criminal syndicate and that he would prejudice ongoing investigation was perverse and same occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.

With regard to issue three (3) learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the case of the Appellant before the lower Court was that on the 3rd day of March, 2015, the Appellant was invited by the Respondent to their office, and that the Appellant went voluntarily to honour the invitation of the Respondent in company of his solicitor one Mr. Kabir Akingbolu and was detained until granted bail by a Magistrate Court. Learned counsel further said on 24th June, 2015, the Appellant who had earlier been granted bail by the Magistrate Court voluntarily made himself available for trial upon his arraignment before the lower Court

5

and that he never jumped bail.

Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the whole essence of granting an Accused person bail is to ensure his attendance in Court to face his trial and that an accused person should not be denied bail unless there is reasonable ground to believe that he would jump bail.
He cited SHAIBU V. FRN (2014) LPELR 22986 (CA) BOLAKALE V. STATE 2005 LPELR 6216 (CA).

Learned counsel further argued that the lower Court was in grave error when it refuses to admit the Appellant to bail on the ground that the Appellant may jump bail when there is uncontroverted evidence before the trial Court that the Appellant voluntarily made himself available to the Respondent by honouring its invitation, and that the record shows that the Appellant had earlier on been released by the Magistrate Court prior to his arraignment and that he did not jump bail but made himself available for his arraignment before the lower Court. It is finally submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant under this issue that the decision of the lower Court refusing bail to the Appellant despite the fact that the Appellant never jumped bail and also

6

voluntarily made himself available for trial is against the principles of natural justice.

In his arguments under issue four learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is nothing to show that the alleged offences being investigated by the Nigeria Police Zone C Headquarters Lagos are different from those charged before the lower Court. It is further argued by learned counsel for the Appellant that the lower Court failed to examine Exhibit EFCC 4 in arriving at its decision that Appellant was being investigated by the Police at Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos in respect of other offences. Learned counsel finally urges this Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Ruling of the lower Court and admit the Appellant to bail on liberal terms.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
The issues in the instant Appeal are in my humble view simple and straight forward. The Appellant in the lower Court applied for bail thus submitting himself to the exercise by the trial Judge of the discretion to grant bail or not. There was deposed to Affidavits in support of the application which stated facts why the Appellant should be granted bail. The Respondent on the

7

other hand deposed to a counter affidavit why the Appellant should not be admitted to bail.

The Appellant in his affidavit in support of the summons for bail dated 16th June, 2015 filed a twenty three paragraph affidavit. For ease of reference the paragraphs are here by reproduced:-
“AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPOPT OF MOTION
I, Uwenni Essien Antia, Male, adult, Christian, businessman, and a Nigerian citizen of No. 31A Olorunmbe Street, Wemabod Estate, Ikoyi Lagos do solemnly swear and states as follows:
1. That I am the Applicant herein and by virtue of that fact, I am conversant with the facts leading to the making of this application.
2. That except where otherwise stated all the facts deposed herein are within my personal knowledge, information and believe.
3. That I am standing trial before this Honourable Court on a four Count charge namely.
i. Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretence contrary to Sections 8 (2) and 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
ii. Obtaining money by false pretence contrary to Section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act,

8

2006.
iii. Conspiracy to forge contrary Sections 409 and 5 (2) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2011.
iv. Forgery contrary to Section 363 (1) (i) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2011.
4. That before I was charged to Court, I was invited by the Respondent to their office on 3rd March, 2015
5. That I went to honour the invitation in the company of my lawyer, Mr. Kabir Akingbolu
6. That after being subjected to stringent interrogation by the Respondent of their office on the 3rd March, 2015, I was detained at their prison facilities without being granted.
7. That while I was in the EFCC custody, for more than 9 days without being charged to Court, nor granted administrative bail, my lawyer quickly rushed to Federal High Court to challenge my unlawful detention.
8. That the EFCC hurriedly rushed me to Magistrate Court to obtain detention warrant for 30 days to justify their act.
9. That on the 13th of March, 2015, EFCC released me to policemen from zone 2 led by on DSP Ibrahim Dantoro on the same alleged offences for police to torture me.

10. That the police took me to their torture

9

chambers of Zone 2 Onikan Lagos, where I was blindfolded and hung to a pole like a roasted chicken from 11pm till morning while I was severely beating and battered.
11. That in the course of the torture, I was equally shot on the ankle by the police without being taken to the hospital.
12. That no sooner had the 30 days detention warrant was over, the EFCC went to Court to get an extension of another 30 days detention warrant which the Magistrate granted.
13. That while in the custody of the police and EFCC for over 70 days, the injuries and wound inflicted on me became deteriorated.
14. That it was by the grace of my counsel who filed application to the Magistrate Court for my bail and which was keenly opposed by the prosecutor and after bitter argument, the Court granted bail to me.
15. That ever since I was released on bail, I have been on hospital bed attending to my failing health and injuries inflicted on my by the EFCC and police for over 70 days that I spent in their custody. Attached and marked as Exhibit to this application is a copy of the picture showing the wounds inflicted on me.
?16. That it is expedient to

10

continue to attend to my failing health.
17. That the offences for which I was charged are bailable offences.
18. That if granted bail, I will not jump bail but make myself available to stand for this trial.
19. That I will not commit any offence while on bail.
20. That if granted bail, I will not in any way obstruct the investigation of this matter as the prosecution has concluded investigation of this matter before charging this matter on Court.
21. That the purpose of the detention warrant granted for 30 days and extended for another 30 days by the Magistrate Court is to enable the prosecution to conclude investigation and subsequently charged us to Court.
22. That I will not tamper with evidence on jeopardize any step of the prosecution in respect of this matter while on bail.
23. That I make this affidavit in good faith, believing the contents to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act.”

The Respondent filed a twenty paragraph counter affidavit on 11th August 2015 in opposition to the bail application and deposed as follows:-
“COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO APPLICANT’S SUMMONS FOR BAIL DATED 16TH JUNE 2015

<br< p=””
</br<

11

I, Abdulrasaq Aliyu, Male, Muslim, Nigerian and Operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, 15a, Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos do solemnly and sincerely make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am one of the investigating officers with Economic and Financial Crimes Commission assigned to investigate the criminal complaint which formed the fulcrum of the charge before this Honourable Court.
2. That I have the consent and authority of the Executive chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to depose to this counter affidavit.
3. That facts deposed to herein are within my personal knowledge same having been derived by me as one of the investigating officers in charge of this case.
4. That I have seen and read:
The 23 paragraph affidavit in support of the applicant’s summon for bail dated 16th June, 2015 and hereby state the averments therein particularly 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are false and misleading.
ii. Also the 8 paragraph further affidavit in support of summons for bail deposed to on 6th August, 2015 and avers that paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are false and

12

misleading.
5. That applicant was brought to the Commission by his counsel on 3rd March, 2015 following moves to declare him wanted after operatives had severally invited and attempted to arrest him without success.
6. Whilst of the Commission, applicant was showed the written petition against him and others, interviewed and he thereafter made a voluntary written statement.
7. Owing to the monumental fraud in this case and preliminary results of investigation, remand orders were consecutively obtained for detention of applicant in the commission’s custody between March, 2015 and June, 2015. Annexed hereto and marked exhibits EFCC1, 2 and 3 are documents to this effect.
8. That before cessation of the remand order, Criminal Charge No.ID/1552C/15 was filed before this Honourable Court and defendants were arraigned before Honourable Justice Lawal Akapo, High Court 34 on 24th June, 2015.
9. That the Commission released the applicant to the Nigeria Police, Zone 2 Command Headquarters in furtherance of criminal allegations they were also carrying out against him. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibits EFCC 4, 5 and 6 are documents to this

13

effect.
10. That when applicant returned from Zone 2 command Headquarters with a swollen right foot, he was questioned and attribute it to a previous skin infection for which unknown to the Commission he had a scheduled medical appointment.
11. Further to paragraph 10 above, I also state as follows:
i. That applicant was nevertheless attended to severally at the Commission’s clinic and apportioned appropriate treatment.
ii. That during his remand, applicant instituted fundamental rights enforcement suit No.FHC/L/CS/274/2015 – Mr Uwem Antia V. EFCC predicated on the said alleged torture/brutalization in police custody at Federal High Court, Lagos and during proceedings was produced before the presiding judge, Honourable Justice Abang on 14th April, 2015 who dismissed the entire suit as lacking in merit on 8th May, 2015.
12. That applicant had also petitioned several government institutions and agencies including the National Human Rights Commission, the National Security Adviser and the Directorate of State Services which had also investigated the Commission about his alleged brutalization.
13. That investigation is not

14

concluded in this case as the Commission is on the trail of one Regan Akaiso, a member of applicant’s criminal syndicate.
14. That releasing applicant on bail would prejudice ongoing investigation and efforts to apprehend Regan Akaiso who is at large.
15. That the Nigerian Prison Service has adequate facility for the treatment of inmates, and makes referrals to Lagos State General Hospitals for complicated cases.
16. Further to paragraph 15 above, the Commission is equally prepared to provide free medical services to applicant at any of its referral hospitals should the need arise whilst undergoing trial.
17. That 1st defendant’s death has nothing to do with Applicant’s travails. Annexed hereto and marked exhibit EFCC 7 is the report from Nigerian Prison service relating to 1st defendant’s death.
18. That the Nigerian Prison Service communicates with the Commission on the state of awaiting trial inmates of economic and financial crimes and did not at any time material intimate us about applicant’s failing health.
19. That it will be in the interest of justice to refuse this application for bail.
20. That I make this

15

counter affidavit in good faith knowing and believing the facts deposed herein to be true, correct and in accordance with the Oaths Law.”

The learned trial Judge in a considered Ruling denied bail to the Appellant on the ground inter alia that the offences against the Appellant are serious offences and that if granted bail the Appellant may not come to stand his trial and the likelihood of the Appellant committing other offences since he is already being investigated by the Nigeria Police Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos in respect of other offence.

Now the law is fairly settled that the power to grant or not to grant bail is entirely within the discretion of the Judge and when a Judge is considering whether to release an applicant to bail pending trial, he must be guided by the following:-
(a) The nature of the charge,
(b) The evidence by which it is supported
(c) The sentence which by law may be passed in the event of a conviction and;
(d) The probability that the accused will make himself available to take his trial.
See; Bamaiyi V. The State 2001 8 NWLR (Pt.715) 270; Nwude V. Federal Government of Nigeria 2004 17 NWLR (Pt. 902)

16

306 @ 328. It follows therefore that the relevant considerations to be taken for a decision in respect of the above requirements can be enumerated thus:-
A. The evidence available against the accused;
B. Availability of the accused to stand trial
C. The nature and gravity of the offence
D. The likelihood of the accused committing another offence while on bail
E. The likelihood of the accused interfering with the course of justice;
F. The criminal antecedents of the accused person;
G. The likelihood of further charge being brought against the accused;
H. The probability of guilt
I. The detention for the prosecution of the accused
J. The necessity to procure medical or social report pending final disposal of the case.
See:-Tanko Mohammed Rajab 4 Anor V. The State (2010) LPELR – 5001 (CA)

These factors may not be relevant in all bail applications cases. In the instant case and upon an analysis of the ruling of the Lower Court, it is clear to me that the learned trial Judge was guided by the considerations relating to the availability of the Appellant to stand trial and the likelihood of the Appellant

17

interfering with investigations and also committing another offence while on bail.

In arriving at his decision not to grant the Appellant bail, the learned trial Judge relied heavily on the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent particularly paragraphs 13 & 14 which I reproduce hereunder:
“13. That investigation is not concluded in this case as the Commission is on the trail of one Regan Akaiso a member of applicant’s criminal syndicate.
14. That releasing applicant on bail would prejudice ongoing investigation and efforts to apprehend Regan Akaiso who is at large.”

The learned trial Judge further relied heavily on Exhibits EFCC 5 & 6 in arriving of the conclusion that the Appellant is being investigated by the Nigerian Police Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos in respect of other offences and on account of this the learned trial judge refused to admit the Appellant to bail.

For emphasis this is what the learned trial Judge said at page 316 of the record viz:
“from the above exhibits, it is crystal clear that apart from this charge the applicant is also being investigated by the Nigerian Police Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos in

18

respect of other offence.
Faced with this situation can it be said in law and in good conscience that the applicant has made out a meritorious case for the grant of bail. The answer clearly is in the negative.”

Now I have examined the contents of Exhibits 5 & 6 which are correspondence between the Nigerian Police Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with respect to investigation against the Appellant.

The correspondences are captured in the ruling of the Lower Court of pages 313 – 315 of the record and for ease of reference same reproduced hereunder:-
13th March, 2015
“the Assistant Inspector General of Police
The Nigeria Police.
‘x’ Squad Department,
Zone 2 Command Headquarter,
Onikan,
Lagos
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
RE: CASE OF CONSPIRACY AND OBTAINING MONEY
UNDER FALSE PRETENCE
SUSPECTS: 1. ALHAJI YERIMA SULEMAN
2. MR UMEM ANTIA ESSIEN
We refer to your letter CR:3000/2N2/X/X. SQD/TD/VOL5/162 on the above subject matter.
2. the Commission has secured Court order to remand the suspects for 30 days. Meanwhile, Alhaji Yerima

19

Sulaiman is currently under prosecution before the Federal High Court in Jos, Plateau State and the case is coming up between 16 to 19th March, 2015.
3. One of the suspects, Mr. Umem Antia is hereby handed over to one of your staff DSP Ibrahim Garba Dantoro to enable you complete your investigation, while the other suspect, Alhaji Yerima Suleiman will be handed over to the Zone as soon as he returns from the Court.
4. However, charges are drafted against the suspects, they will be due for arraignment in two (2) week. In view of this, kindly return him back to us on 23/03/2015 for the arraignment/prosecution.
5. While you kindly accept the assurances of Executive Chairman’s highest regards, acknowledge receipt, please.
SGD
ILYASU KWARBAI
Head, Lagos Zone.”

7th April, 2015
“The Head of Operations
Economic & Financial Crimes Commission,
No. 15A Awolowo Road,
Ikoyi, Lagos.
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
RE: CASE OF CONSPIRACY AND OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCE
SUSPECTS: (1) ALHAJI YERIMA SULEIMAN
(2) MR UMEM ANTIA ESSIEN
We refer to your letter CR: 3000/EFCC/LS/BE4/VOL2/202 dated 13th March, 2015 and

20

CR: 3000/EFCC/LS/BE4/VOL2/237 dated 23rd March, 2015 on the above subject matter.
2. A discreet and painstaking investigation has been conducted in the case reported to this office against the suspects and a level of success was recorded.
3. However, due to time constraint and the agreement reached with your office, the two suspects ALHAJI YERIMA SULEIMAN and MR UMEW ANTIA ESSIEN are hereby handed over to your office through SGT. Esomojum Olayeye.
4. Accept the assurances and warmest regard of the Assistant inspector General of Police Zone 2 Command Onikan. Lagos.
SGD
ACP AKINYEDE J. OLUSOLA
‘x’ SQUAD SECTION
ZONE 2 COMMAND HEADQUARTERS
ONIKAN. LAGOS”

As I said earlier I have perused the said exhibits and there is nothing on the face of the documents to show that the offences being investigated by the Nigerian Police Zone 2 Headquarters Lagos are different from the ones for which the Appellant is undergoing trial in the Lower Court.

In the two exhibits the offences mentioned and the suspect are the same as disclosed in the information charge against the Appellant before the Lower Court.

?The Appellant in

21

paragraph 9 of his Affidavit in support of the application for bail before the lower Court had maintained that he was released to Nigerian Police Zone 2 Lagos on the same alleged offences merely for the Police to torture him. This is what he said in paragraph
9: “that on the 13th of March 2015 Economic and Financial Crimes Commission released me to Policemen from Zone 2 led by one DSP Ibrahim Dantoro on the same alledge offences for Police to torture me.”

Now if the learned trial Judge had adverted his mind to the above paragraph and Exhibit 4 relied on by the Respondent in paragraph 9 of their counter Affidavit he would surely have come to the correct conclusion which is that the investigation being carried out by the Nigerian Police Zone 2 relates to the same offences for which the Appellant was standing trial in the Lower Court.

Exhibit ECC 4 relied on by the Respondent at paragraph 9 of the Respondent Counter Affidavit is captured of page 234 of the record of Appeal and is reproduced thus:-
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
?x SQUAD DEPARTMENT
Telegraphic Address – THE NIGERIA POLICE
AIGZON X SQUAD – ZONE 2 COMMAND

22

HEADQUARTERS
ONIKAN – ONIKAN
LAGOS – LAGOS
Email: [email protected]
CR:3000/ZN2/x/SOD/TD/VOL57/162 – DATE 4/03/2015
The Head of Operations
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
No.15a Awolowo Road
Ikoyi, Lagos
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
RE:CASE OF CONSPIRACY AND OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSE
SUSPECTS (1) ALHAJI YERIMA SULEIMAN
(2) MR UMEM ANITIA ESSIEN
This office is investigating the above mentioned case against the suspects listed above and are presently detained in your custody.
2. You are requested, as a matter of co-operation to handover these suspects to this office when you are through with your investigation to enable me continue with my investigation.
3. Accept the assurance and warmest regard of the Assistant Inspector General Police Zone 2 Command Onikan Lagos
ACF.SUNDAY K UKOHA Psc
X SQUAD SECTION,
ZONE 2, COMMAND HEADQUARTERS ONIKAN, LAGOS

It is thus clear to me from the affidavit of the parties and the exhibits before the Lower Court that as at the time the Application for bail was made by the Appellant to the Lower Court the

23

Appellant was not facing any other investigation for any offence quite apart from the ones he was charged with in the Lower Court.

The decision of the learned trial Judge refusing bail to the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant is also being investigated by the Nigerian Police in respect of other offences cannot be allowed to stand as it is on exercise of discretion made on faulty foundation.

?Related to this is the reliance placed by the learned trial Judge on paragraph 13 and 14 of the Respondent counter affidavit which averred that investigation is not concluded in the case and that the Respondent is on the trail of one Reagan Akaiso a member of the Appellant’s syndicate and that releasing the Appellant on bail would prejudice ongoing investigations and efforts to apprehend the said Reagan who is said to be of large. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that since in the petition against the Appellant no mention was made of the said Reagan Akaiso and the charge never disclosed that the said Reagan Akaiso or any suspect is of large then the decision of the Lower Court that granting bail to the Appellant would prejudice investigation is

24

perverse and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

I agree with learned counsel for the Appellant that there is nothing on the face of the charge to show that the named Reagan Akaiso or indeed any suspect is at large with respect to the offences the Appellant was charged with.

The information charge which is at pages 1 and 2 of the printed record reads:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
IN THE IKEJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT IKEJA
CHARGE NO.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
V.
1. ALHAJI YERIMA SULEIMAN
2. MR. UMEM ESSIEN ANTIA
INFORMATION
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015
At the Criminal Division of the High Court of Lagos State, holden at Ikeja on the …… day of …… 2015, the Court is informed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that:
1. ALHAJI YERIMA SULEIMAN
2. MR. UWEM ESSIEN ANTIA
Are charged with the following offences:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 1ST COUNT
Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretence contrary to Sections 8(2) and 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act,

25

2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Alhaji Yerima Suleiman and Mr. Uwen Essien Antia on or about the 5th day of February, 2015 at Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court with intent to defraud, conspired to obtain money by false pretence from Dennis Ale and Aginwa Gladys.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 2ND COUNT
Obtaining money by false pretence contrary to Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Alhaji Yerima Suleiman and Mr Uwen Essien Antia on or about the 5th day of February, 2015 at Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court with intent to defraud obtained the sum of N465,750,000 (Four Hundred and Sixty Five Million Seven Hundred and Fifty, Thousand Naira) from Dennis Ale and Aginwa Gladdys on the fraudulent representation that you were going to give them the foreign exchange equivalent of S2, 250, 000 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) which representation you knew was false.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ? 3RD COUNT
Conspiracy to forge contrary to Sections 409 and 5(2) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of

26

Nigeria, 2011.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Alhaji Yerima Suleiman and Mr. Uwen Essien Antia on or about the 6th day of February, 2015 at Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court with a fraudulent intent, conspired to commit Felony, to wit: forgery of acknowledgement of receipt dated 6th February, 2015.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE – 4TH COUNT
Forgery contrary to Section 363(1)(i) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2011.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Alhaji Yerima Suleiman and Mr. Uwen Essien Antia on or about the 6th day of February, 2015 at Lagos within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud and in order to facilitate your obtaining money by false pretense from Dennis Ale and Aginwa Gladys forged acknowledgement of receipt dated 6th February, 2015 purported to have been made by Dennis Ale.
Dated this ….day of …. 2015
G.K. LATONA
HEAD OF LEGAL, LAGOS
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

?Surely nothing is indicated therein to even remotely suggests that investigation into the case is on going with a view to apprehending some suspects for purposes of putting

27

them on trial in respect of the offences the Appellant is charged with.

I do not therefore think that the learned trial judge had exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously when he refused to admit the Appellant to bail based on those considerations.

As he himself conceded in his judgment bail pending trial is a constitutional right in tune with the provisions of Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. This Court in Ezenwafor V. C.O.P (2009) LPELR, 4004 (CA) held:-
“by the provision of Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, there is the presumption in favour of the liberty of the subject and his innocence in criminal allegations until he has been proved and found guilty in accordance to the relevant law(s). This is irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which he is charged. In any given case, the burden is on the prosecution to show that an accused person is not one that should be released on bail. Under Section 35(7) of the Constitution, bail pending trial is not usually granted where the offence with which the applicant is charged

28

is a capital offence punishable with death.”

It is against this back ground that I allow the Appeal, set aside the ruling of the Lower Court and in its place hereby order that the Appellant be allowed on bail in the sum of Five Million Naira with two sureties in the same amount.

The sureties are to be resident in Lagos and supply proof of ownership of residence property in Lagos. The lower Court shall ensure that Appellant satisfies the terms of bail.

---

Other Citations: (2016)LCN/8747(CA)