CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON- The right of an accused person charged in a magistrate Court under summary trial to adequate facilities for his defence.
Whether an accused person charged in a magistrate court (or any other court with summary trial jurisdiction) is entitled to adequate facilities for his defence – issue formulation is mine
Section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria which gives the accused person right to fair hearing in his trial. This right encompasses the accused person’s entitlement to be informed of the case against him and to have adequate opportunity to prepare his defence. This includes access to any statements made against him, documents intended for use against him, and all other materials the Prosecution intends to rely on in court.
In the above case the Applicant (as the defendant in the court of first instance) through his counsel applied that the Prosecution be directed to serve the him with the proof of evidence in this case but the argument of the Respondent was that the Appellant is not entitled to the statements requested because he elected summary trial before a Magistrate Court.
Per JAURO ,J.S.C (Pp. 46-49 paras. E) held that
“The relevant provision is Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which provides thus:
Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to –
(b) be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.”
It is clear that by the use of the all-encompassing word “every” to qualify “person charged with a criminal offence”, the above provision did not distinguish between summary trial and trial by information. The intendment of the Section 36(6)(b) of the Constitution is to ensure that an accused person facing a criminal trial has a fair trial, is not put at a disadvantage and is not ambushed or caught by surprise by the Prosecution. See OKOYE & ORS V. C.O.P & ORS (2015) LPELR – 24675 (SC). It does not appear to me that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ebonyi State relied on by the Respondent have a contrary interpretation and the said law or any other law cannot be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, otherwise such provisions will be void to the extent of their inconsistency with the constitutional provisions”.
Solomon Agbator, LLB, LLM, PhD (in View)
(Offering legal principles and analysis).