FRANCIS V. FRN (2020) LPELR-52520(SC)

ALLOCUTUS- IT IS THE CONVICT, NOT THE DEFENCE COUNSEL, WHO MAKES THE ALLOCUTUS.

ISSUE: Whether allocutus can be made on behalf of an accused person after conviction

“Allocutus”, as defined in Earl Jowitt: The Dictionary of English Law, is what the convict has to say why the Court should not proceed to sentence him. That is, what the convict shows “why the sentence should not be passed”. The convict, not the defence Counsel pleads his allocutus. In other words, it is for the convict himself to show cause why the prescribed sentence for the offence he was convicted of be not passed or imposed on him.” Per EKO, JSC- FRANCIS V. FRN (2020) LPELR-52520(SC) (PP. 5 PARAS. C)

It should be noted that, it was previously customary for counsel to proceed to do an allocutus on behalf of convicted accused persons. However, it is now legally incorrect for counsel to do so, based on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Even if the accused person was not physically present in Court no allocutus could be made by counsel on his behalf- MAINA V. FRN (2022) LPELR-58942(CA) (PP. 53-54 PARAS. D).

It is my humble opinion that above underscore the personal nature of the allocutus and reaffirms the position that it is non-transferable to counsel. This pronouncement ensures that the convict is actively engaged in the sentencing process and reinforces accountability within the judicial system.

Solomon Agbator, LLB, LLM, PhD (in View)
(Offering legal principles and analysis).