No Case Submission At The Instance Of The Court: An Examination Of Section 302 Of The ACJA

By Prince Azubuike Esq.

INTRODUCTION

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) seeks to revise our criminal law and the administration of criminal justice in particular. The Act exhibits some important features some of which are hitherto unknown to our criminal jurisprudence but which are aimed at transforming the tedious and slow dispensation of criminal justice in Nigeria.

One of the innovations of the ACJA, 2015 which has been domesticated by most states of the federation is the power of a court to raise the issue of no case submission suo motu. This power is provided for in section 302 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and section 309 of the ACJL of Rivers State No. 7 of 2015. The said section empowers the court to on its own motion, raise the issue of no case submission and rule on it.

The gravamen of this paper is to consider whether once the court raises the issue of no case submission suo motu pursuant to section 302 of the ACJA, parties (particularly the prosecution) must address the court on the issue before the court can proceed to rule on same. If the answer to the above section is in the negative, whether the said section does not infringed on the right to fair hearing and further cast doubts as to the neutrality and impartiality of the court. In answering these questions, it will be apposite to consider the said section 302 of the ACJA.

THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OF S. 302 OF THE ACJA, 2015

Section 302 of the ACJA provides as follows:

‘The court may, on its own motion or on application by the defendant after hearing the evidence of the prosecution, where it considers that the evidence against the defendant or any of several defendants is not sufficient to justify the continuation of the trial, record a finding of not guilty in respect of the defendant without calling on him or them to enter his or their defence and the defendant shall accordingly be discharged and the court shall then call on the remaining defendant, if any, to enter his defence.’

A cursory look at the above section reveals that a submission of no case to answer can either be raised by the court of the defendant. The section further empowers the court to, on its own motion, record a finding of not guilty where it considers the evidence as insufficient to warrant the continuation of the trial. This the court can do without necessarily calling on the parties to address it on the issue of no case submission.

The writer finds this section dangerous for the following reasons:

It is imperative to note that once the issue of no case submission is raised by the defendant, or in this case by the court, it postulates one or both of the following:

1. That there is no legally admissible evidence linking an accused with the commission of the offence with which he has been charged which would necessitate his being called upon for his defence or when there has been no evidence to prove an essential element of the offence.
2. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court or tribunal can act on it as establishing the guilt in the accused person concerned or could safely act on it. See Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 989) 473; Joseph v. State (2013) LPELR-22604.

It must be recognized that courts in criminal trials must at all times endeavour to, like Caesar’s wife, live above board. In other words, the neutrality of courts in criminal proceedings should never be in doubt. Giving the courts such powers to raise an issue suo motu without inviting parties to address it on the said issue does not promote fair hearing and by extension the interest of justice.

An issue as weighty as no case submission should not be left for the courts to raise and decide without affording parties the opportunity to address it on same. In fact, the courts up to the Supreme Court has held in plethora of cases that a court is not entitled to raise an issue suo motu and decide on it without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. This is because in doing so, the court is seen to have leave its exalted position as impartial arbiter and descend into the arena of conflict. See Egbuchu v. Continental Merchant Bank Plc. & Ors (2016) LER SC Q3Z2 per Kekere-Ekun JSC. Similarly, in the case of Olusanya v. Olusanya (1983) 14 NSCC 97 at 102, the Supreme Court stated the principle regarding raising an issue suo motu by the court thus:

“This court has said on a number of occasions that although a court is entitled to, in its discretion, to take points suo motu, if it sees fit to do so, yet that discretion must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances only: where the points are so taken, the parties must be given the opportunity tom address the court before decision on the point is made.”

See also Ejike v. COP (2015) 4-5 SC (Pt. 1) 101; Ogwe v. IGP (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt.1459) 505; Tinubu v. IMB Securities (2001) 8 MJSC 1.

It is important to state at this juncture that the general rule that courts must hear parties once an issue is raised ssuo motu like every other legal rule admits of three exceptions to wit:

1. When the issue relates to the court’s own jurisdiction
2. When both parties are not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case.
3. When on the face of the record, serious questions on the fairness of the proceedings are evident. See Gbagbarigha v. Toruemi (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 289 at 310; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1 at 23.

Flowing from the above, can be argued that issues of no case submission relates to the court’s own jurisdiction to entitle it raise the issue without inviting parties to address it on same? I doubt. In fact, suffice to state that none of these exceptions can safely apply when it comes to the issue of no case submission, as the proper thing for a court to do is to invite parties to address it on same whenever no case submission is raised.

CONCLUSION

Section 302 of the ACJA, 2015 is a welcome development in criminal justice administration, this is more so when the courts are given the latitude to intervene on the behalf of the defendant. It is my candid submission and respectfully so that once the issue of no case submission is raised suo motu, parties should, as a matter of necessity be invited to address the court on same.

Prince Azubuike Esq., Partner, West Law Solicitors, Port Harcourt