2011 NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL BAR FINALS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN CRIMINAL LITIGATION
COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION
NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL
BAR FINAL EXAMINTIONS
TUESDAY, 9TH AUGUST, 2011 TIME: 3 HOURS
INSTRUCTIONS:
THIS PAPER IS DIVIDED INTO 2 SECTIONS AND 2 ANSWER BOOKLITS ARE PROVID. QUESTIONS 1
QUESTIONS FROM EACH SECTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED ON A SEPRATE ANSWER BOOKLET.
WRITE YOUR EXAMINATION NUMBER ON EACH ANSWER BOOKELT
SECTION 1
QUESTION 1 (COMPULSORY)
Ocha Bukar was arraigned at the Chief Magistrate Court, Kakuri, Kaduna State upon a First Information Report which stated that Ocha Bukar Killed one Vimtim Sule With a knife at a football viewing centre in Kakuri on 15th May, 2009 over disagreement as to who was a better footballer, between Austin Okocha and Nwankwo Kanu. Counsel to Ocha objected to the Court taking cognizance of the First information Report on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to try a capital offence . The objection was overruled. The Magistrate thereafter proceeded as follows.
Court: No plea was taken for want of jurisdiction. Accused is hereby remanded at the Federal prisons, Kaduna pending police investigation and DPPs legal advice. The case is adjourned to 30th June, 2009 for mention.
In the course of investigation by the police, it was discovered that Ocha Bukar had sexual intercourse with Bilikisu Dare, a 12-year old vegetable hawker whom he enticed into a room with the sun of N1,000.00. This incident took place at a house in Zaria, close to the High Court premises. Ocha`s room- mate and friend Nuhu Ibrahim had agreed with the plan because the girl had previously insulted him. The DPP Kaduna State eventually advised in favour of prosecution in JULY 2009.
(A) Draft the charges in this case.
THE LAW
SECTION 221 PENAL CODE
Except in the circumstances mentioned in Section 222, culpable homicide shall be punished with death-
SECTION 283
Whoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for any less term and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 97 (1) PENAL CODE
Whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment shall where no express provision is made in this Penal Code for punishment of such a conspiracy be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
i. Was it lawful for the police to arraign the accused before a Court that had no jurisdiction over the substantive offence?
ii. What procedure would you follow to tender a medical report (as to cause of death) issued by a pathologist in the employment of the Kaduna State Government to anticipate any potential objections the defence would raise to admissibility.
iii. Can the Court convict on the evidence of Bilikius Dare alone? Why?
iv. If due to oversight the blood-stained and semen-stained underwear of the victim were not tendered until the defence had closed its case, how can the prosecution tender these exhibits? State the procedure.
v. If at the close of the case for the prosecution none of the witnesses mentioned Nuhu Ibrahims name, what should Counsel do?
1(B) Comment on the propriety or otherwise of trial judge convicting a defendant merely on his plea of guilty to possession of Indian Hemp. Justify your contention.
1(c). As opposing Counsel, briefly state your reply to the following objections in the course of a trial:
i. An objection by defence Counsel to the appearance of police Officer before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
ii. An objection by prosecuting Counsel on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction, having not been raised at the Court of trial cannot be raised as a sole ground of Appeal.
QUESTION 2
On 4th July, 2011, Dotun Fagunwa, Ayoade Omidiji and Biobaku Orimogunje were arrested by the Nigerian Police, Ikoyi, Lagos on an offence of conspiracy, forgery and altering the register of Directors of Afric -International Trade Limited at the Corporate Affair Office, Lagos, contrary to Section 3(a) Miscellaneous Offences Act, Cap M17 Laws of the Federation of Nigerian, 2004. The three suspects are to appear before the Federal High Court, Ikoyi Lagos on the 11th July,2011 when the case will be coming up for hearing . The suspects engaged the services of Miss Talkatu Chukwa who was called to the Nigerian Bar in August 2010 to defend them. Miss Talkatu immediately filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain this matter. The Counsel also challenged the locus stand of the Attorney-General of the Federation to prosecute this case on the ground that it is a State offence. When the case came up before the Federal High Court on July 11, 2011, the three accused person were absent in court based on the advice of Miss Talkatu to stay away from court. The judge immediately issued a Bench warrant for the arrest of the three accused person. The judge also refused to hear the preliminary objection of the counsel on the grounds of the absence of the accused persons when the case was mentioned in court. Miss Talkatu was dissatisfied. She therefore walked out on the court when the judge reading his ruling. Comment on the following:
a. The validity of the objections of Counsel.
b. The order of Court for Bench Warrant against the accused persons.
c. The absence of the accused person in Court, based on the advice of their counsel
d. The walking out of Court by Defence Counsel.
e. The procedure for a valid arraignment.
f. Draft a Notice of Preliminary Objection on behalf of the accused persons (without an affidavit.)
QUESTION 3
During the recent flooding of the various parts of Lagos, many lives were lost and valuable properties destroyed. Hoodlums took the advantage of the situation and carted away goods belonging to the residents of Olorunsogo Street in Mushin Area of Lagos. Ten of such miscreants were arrested and detained during this period. On 5th of July 2011, they were brought before the Chief Magistrate Court IKeja for trial. They took their plea and pleaded not guilty to the offences of stealing, breach of public peace, among others. On the next adjourned date, the prosecuting police Officer urged the presiding Magistrate to conduct a visit to the locus-in-quo and the Magistrate obliged him. However, for lack of vehicle only two of the accused persons were transported to the locus-in-quo. The Counsel to the accused persons objected to this arrangement, but was overrules. The Court, including the Registrar proceeded to the scene of crime, where the Magistrate inspected and took note things.
The Registrar set up the Court at the locus criminis and proceedings continued there. The prosecution witnesses were examined in chief and cross-examined by the defence Counsel. At the next adjourned date in court, the Magistrate called on the defence Counsel to enter upon his defence after the prosecution had informed the court of the end of their own case. The defence declined, insisting that the court ought to call the prosecution witnesses in court so that they would give their evidence again and be cross-examined. The court overruled him on the grounds that since they had already testified at the locus in quo, it was unnecessary. The defence called four witnesses and closed its case
The magistrate thereafter adjourned for addresses by counsel. On the adjourned date, the magistrate informed the court that the case was very straightforward. So he gave an oral judgment, convicting the ten accused persons.
Supporting your answers with relevant statutory and judicial authorities, answer the following questions.
a) Comment on the propriety or otherwise of the visit to the locus in quo without all the accused persons
b) Why is it desirable that the accused persons should be at the locus in quo. Give reasons
c) Was the magistrate right in refusing to call prosecution witnesses when they reconvened at the original court. Give reasons.
d) Assuming the magistrate intended to adopt another procedure for a visit to the locus in quo, can he? Briefly explain this other procedure.\
e) How valid is the judgment delivered by the Magistrate. Explain with valid reasons
SECTION II
1. PLEASE USE ANOTHER ANSWER BOOKLET FOR THIS SECTION
2. QUESTION 4 IS COMPULSORY
3. ONE OTHER QUESTION FROM THIS SECTION SHOULD BE ATTEMPTED
QUESTION 4 (COMPULSORY)
In the course of the criminal trial of Mr Johnson Bello for the murder of one Tunde Jacob at the High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan, the following examination of witnesses took place. Read the examinations carefully and answer the questions which followed, stating your reasons and authorities.
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF THE IPO (INVESTIGATING POLICE OFFICER)
QUETION ONE
PROSECUTING COUNSEL: You are Mr John Okoye, a police officer attached to the traffic section of the Police Station at Dugbe, Ibadan
DEFENCE: Objection my Lord
COUNSEL: Leading question
COURT: Witness may answer the question
WITNESS: Yes, My Lord
QUESTION TWO
COUNSEL: Did you on May 1, 2011 at about 4pm carry out investigation of a case of murder involving the accused person in this case?
WITNESS: Well, I …………………………………..
DEFENCE: Objection, My Lord. The Counsel is leading
COURT: Objection upheld. Counsel may not ask questions in this manner again
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
QUESTION ONE:
DEFENCE: Did you say you attended the University of Ibadan between 2005 and 2009?
WITNESS: Yes, My Lord
COUNSEL: Would I be right to say that you were sometime ago, before you joined the Police Force, a clerical officer with Ondo State Ministry of Information, Akure
WITNESS: Yes, but i cannot see the relevance of this question to this case
QUESTIO THREE
DEFENCE: Just answer the question I put to you, please. Would I be right to say that you were sacked as a Clerical Officer by the Ondo State Ministry of information because you defrauded the Ministry?
WITNESS: You have no reason to say that. That is unfair.
CROSS EXAMIN G COUNSEL: It was already a suggestion, a product of my imagination. If you did not do such a thing, I would not press the question. You know this is cross-examination. The sky is the limit. I can ask any question I like.
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
QUESTION ONE:
PROSECUTION: In the course cross-examination, you said you never went to see the deceased person while in the hospital bed, till his death
WITNESS: Yes, I never did.
PROSECUTION: Did you make as statement to the Police on July 20, 2010.
WIRNESS: Yes, In I did
PROSECUTION: Is it not true that in your statement to the Police, you stated that you saw the deceased person in the hospital before he died?
DEFENCE COUNSEL: My lord, we object to this line of questioning. My Learned friend can only ask the last question upon the fulfilment of certain conditions or requirement
COURT: Objection upheld. The proper procedure has not been followed. I agree that the required condition must be met.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
(1) In your view, was the court correct when it overruled the first objection in the above examination in chief
(2) If you were the defence counsel, what would be your basis for taking an abjection to question 2 in the examination in chief of witness A
(3) As counsel for the prosecution, state in one sentence the practical step you would have taken to remove the objectionable nature of question 2 of the above exam-in-chief
(4) As counsel for the prosecution, re-state question 2 in the above exam-in-chief of the witness in the correct way, which would not be objectionable
(5) In one sentence, state the main aim of exam-in-chief.
(6) In the circumstance of the case, should counsel have asked question 3 of the above cross-exam of the witness
(7) State three of the exceptions to the following statement by counsel in the cross-exam conducted above This is a cross exam. The sky is the limit. I can ask any question.”
(8) Mention three of the purposes of a cross exam
(9) In your considered view, did the court rightly uphold the only objection in the above re-examination of witness
(10) If your answer to (9) above is in the affirmative, briefly explain the proper procedure referred to by the court in its ruling on the objection.
QUESTION 5
The trio of Edem, Obi and Chika were arrested by the Police in Lokoja, Kogi State for the offence of arson. Upon receipt of the case file by the DPP of the State, the Attorney-General directed orally that only Obi and Chika should be charged to court. Obi and Chika were enraged by the decision of the AG and have decided to file a preliminary objection in court, to challenge the decision. After leave to prefer the charge pursuant to section 185 (B) of the CPC had been granted by the chief Judge of the State, Justice Bako, the prosecuting State counsel on the next adjourned date orally applied to the court to substitute a fresh charge sheet, containing two charges of arson and theft for the original, which contained only arson. Subsequently, the charges were read to the accused persons who pleaded Not guilty. The Defence counsel orally applied for bail on their behalf, but was rebuked by the trial judge who advised him to formalise his application. Both accused persons were ordered to be reminded in prison custody. At the next adjourned date, the prosecuting counsel only called seven out of the ten witnesses listed in the proof of evidence and closed his case. The accused persons called two witnesses each, who paid glowing tribute to the character of the accused persons. In his address on March 14, 2011, the defence counsel urged the court to acquit the accused persons on the ground that they are first offenders. The prosecuting counsel did not reply because he needed to cite an authority, which he had left at the AG`s Chambers; so the prosecuting counsel asked for an adjournment to the next day, which was granted by the Judge. The trial Judge adjourned the case to June 17, 2011 for judgement. On the adjourned date, the accused persons were sentenced to four years imprisonment on both counts. Answer the following questions:
(1) State the propriety or otherwise of Obi and Chika`s decision to challenge the charge instituted in court against them by the AG
(2) Was the court right in granting the amendment to the charge? Give reasons for your answer.
(3) Draft the application for bail (without the supporting affidavit).
(4) Was the prosecuting counsel right in calling only seven out of the ten witnesses listed in the proof of evidence? State reasons for your answer.
(5) Comment on the propriety or otherwise of the judgment delivered by the court
QUESTION 6
A. George and Dibo were notorious gangsters who terrorised the Abuja metropolis for about six months. They were however arrested by the Police on June 06, 2011, during one of their raids in Lokama Close of Zone 4. While in Police custody, George made a confessional statement, implicating Dibo and himself. At the trial, George claimed that he had made the confessional statement involuntarily, after hours of torture by the Police. George has applied for bail pending trial and the prosecution intends to oppose the bail application. Answer the following questions.
(i) What is the effect of a confessional statement made involuntarily?
(ii) Assuming George denied authorship of the confessional statement, what should the trial court do?
(iii) Is the confessional statement made by George binding on Dibo?
(iv) As the prosecuting counsel, draft the Counter-Affidavit for the bail application of George
(v) What must not be contained in an affidavit, according to the Evidence Act/
B. Dogo and Vincent were arraigned before the High Court of Bayelsa State sitting in Yenagoa on a four count charge of conspiracy, stealing and arson, and causing grievous bodily harm. Dogo and Vincent pleaded not guilty to the four-count charge. After the prosecution closed its case, the defence entered a No Case to Answer, which was overruled. During the cross-exam of one of the defence witnesses, the prosecution attacked the character of the witness by saying that he was a rapist while in secondary school, and as such was not credible to testify. Dogo and Vincent were convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, they have applied to the Court of Appeal, contending that they were not properly arraigned and that their submission of no case to answer was wrongly overruled
(i) In the light of the cross-exam of the defence counsel, what are the purposes of Cross-examination?
(ii) What are the questions that are disallowed in cross-examination, according to the Evidence Act?
(iii) Outline the stages of the arraignment of Dogo and Vincent, to comply with statutory requirements.
(iv) State the conditions upon which a defence counsel may make a No-Case submission
(v) What is the effect of a no-case rightly upheld?
C. Melbo Ade was convicted of stealing by the Ikeja High Court, Lagos. He appealed against his conviction on the following grounds:
(i) That he was denied a fair trial.
(ii) That his application for bail was wrongly refused on the grounds that he was a notorious thief.
(iii) That he was not granted an adjournment he had sought to enable him to secure the services of a counsel
(iv) That the judge descended into the arena during the trial.
Answer the following questions:
(1) In deciding whether or not to grant Melbo bail, the court ought to put the following into consideration
a. Gravity of the offence
b. Criminal record of the accused person
c. The disposition of the judge
d. Availability of the accused person to appear to stand trial
(2) In applying for bail for Melbo, the defence counsel ought to file one of the following document:
a. Motion on Notice with affidavit and a final address
b. Motion on Notice with a summons for bail
c. Motion notice and an affidavit
d. Motion on Notice with a No-Case
(3) In the trial of Melbo, the trial judge may ask question only in one of the following circumstances
a. To clarify ambiguities
b. To justify that he is competent
c. To determine the guilt of the accused
d. To make the trial interesting
CRIMINAL LITIGATION
AUGUST 2011
MARKING SCHEME
SECTION 1
QUESTION 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
(1MK)
CASE NO……………..( 1 mk)
BETWEEN :
THE STATE ………………………………..] COMPLAINANT
AND (1MK)
OCHA BUKAR……………………………………………….] ACCUSED
CHARGE 1
That you, Ocha Bukar, on the 15th day of May 2009 at a viewing centre at Kakuri in the Kaduna Judicial division committed culpable homicide punishable with death by stabbing Vimtim Sule with a Knife and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 221 of the Penal Code Laws of Kaduna State.
(2mk)
Dated this ……………………day of ……………………………2012……. ( ½ mk)
……………………………………
MOSES KPAKO
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
KADUNA STATE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
FOR: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
KADUNA STATE (1 MARK)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KADUNA STATE
IN THE ZARIA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ZARIA
(1MK)
CASE NO……………..( 1 mk)
BETWEEN :
THE STATE ………………………………..] COMPLAINANT
AND (1MK)
OCHA BUKAR……………………………………………….] ACCUSED
NUHU IBRAHIM
CHARGE 1
That you, Ocha Bukar, on the
day of
2009 in Zaria in the Zaria Judicial Division raped one Bilikisu Dare and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 283 of the Penal Code Laws of Kaduna State.
(2mk)
CHARGE 2
That you, Ocha Bukar, and Nuhu Ibrahim on the
day of
2009 in Zaria in the Zaria Judicial Division conspired to rape one Bilikisu Dare and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Laws of Kaduna State. (2marks)
Dated this ……………………day of ……………………………2012……. ( ½ mk)
……………………………………
MOSES KPAKO
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
KADUNA STATE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
FOR: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
KADUNA STATE (1 MARK)
1A.
i) It was unlawful to arraign the accused before a court without jurisdiction. This will amount to a holding charge which is unknown to Nigerian Law 1mark
ii) The medical report as to the cause of death will be tendered by calling the pathologist to give oral evidence as to the cause of death and tender the medical report s. 77 (d) (1) Evidence Act 1mark
iii) The evidence of a victim of a sexual offence requires corroboration. An accused person shall not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. s. 179 (5) Evidence Act 1mark
The evidence of Bilikisu Dare requires corroboration. The court cannot convict on her testimony alone 1mark
iv) The prosecution can apply for leave of court to reopen it case and call further evidence 1mark
v) The counsel for the accused can make a no case submission on his behalf 1mark
1B.
Where the offence for which an accused person has pleaded guilty can only be constituted by scientific or expert evidence, such evidence must be tendered by the prosecution before he can be convicted upon his plea STEVENSON V POLICE, ESSIEN V KING 2mark
1C
(i) A police officer can appear and prosecute criminal cases in all courts including the Federal High Court Abuja. The only limitation is the power of the AG to take over or discontinue proceedings olusemo v cop, FRN V osahon 2marks
(ii) The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the trial even on appeal 1mark
QUESTION 2
a) The preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the matter is valid, the offences alleged are conspiracy, forgery and altering. These are within the jurisdiction of the state and not the Federal High Court. S 251, 272 (1) CFRN, 1999 as amended.
The objection challenging the locus standi of the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute the case is also valid. No fiat has been given to him by the state AG. S 174 (1) CFRN 1999 as amended, anyebe v state 2marks
b) The court order of a bench warrant against the 3 accused persons was proper, since they were absent in court. S. 143 CPA 2marks
c) It was unethical for counsel to accused persons to advise them to stay away from court. Accused persons should be present in court always throughout their trial see state v adeoye 2marks
d) The walking out of court by the defence counsel when the Judge was reading his ruling was unethical and disrespectful to court and amounts to contempt of court see rule 31 RPC, fawehinmi v state 2marks
e) The requirement for a valid arraignment is that the accused shall appear or be brought before the court unfettered, the charge shall be read and explained to him by the Registrar of Officer of Court, to the satisfaction of the Court. He shall thereafter be asked to plead to the charge. See kajubo v the state, ogunye v state, s 187 (1) CPC, 215 CPA
f)
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
1 MARK
CHARGE NO
1/2 MARK
BETWEEN
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
..COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT
AND
DOTUN FAGUNWA
AYOADE OMIDIJI
BIOBAKU ORIMOGUNJE
..DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS 1MK
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
TAKE NOTICE that at the hearing of this matter, the Accused persons shall by way of preliminary objection challenge the competence of this matter and the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and seek for the following:
1. An order that the charge be dismissed or in the alternative that it be struck out
2. And for such further order and orders that this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances 1MK
AND TAKE NOTICE that the Accused persons shall be bringing the following grounds as objection:
1. That by section 251 (2) and 3 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to try the accused persons for the alleged offences
2. That by Section 174 (1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, the Attorney General of the federation lacks locus standi to prosecute the accused persons for the alleged offences which are offences created by the house of assembly of the state 1/2MK
DATED THIS
. DAY OF
.2011 ½ mark
.
Talkatu c (mrs)
Counsel to Applicants/accused
NOTICE ON:
THE AG FEDERATION
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSICE
QUESTION 3
a) Where a court orders a visit to a locus in quo, the accused persons must be present S 205 (2) ACJL, ADUNFE V IGP. In this case, the Magistrate was wrong in visiting the locus in the absence of some of the accused persons 3MARKS
b) It is desirable for all the accused persons to be present at the locus in quo because a visit to locus in quo is part of the court proceedings irrespective of the option adopted. Since it is a court proceeding the accused person cannot be tried in absentia. adeoye v state They must all be present 3marks
c) Where the court adopts the procedure of adjourning the sitting to the locus criminis and conducts its proceedings, evidence will be taken and witnesses cross examined cop v olaopa. 3marks
d) The other procedure the Magistrate could have adopted was to adjourn the case and proceed to view the place (locus criminis) and thereafter return to the court room where proceedings in relation to the visit will be conducted. R v dogbe, s 205 (1) ACJL, s 77 (d) (ii) evidence act 3marks
e) Magistrates in Lagos state cannot give oral judgment. S 275 ACJL the oral judgment by the magistrate was wrong 3marks
AUGUST 2011
CRIMINAL LITIGATION
MARKING SCHEME
SECTION 2
QUESTION 4
QUESTION 1: Yes the trial judge was right. Although a leading question, it is allowed in examination in chief since it is introductory or undisputed S.196(2) Evidence Act. (2marks)
QUESTION 2: I will object because:
-it is a leading question and it is not one of the circumstances under which a leading question may be alloed
-no foundation was laid for the question as he had made no reference to any previous encounter. (2mks)
QUESTION 3: I will lay a foundation by asking if he remembers 1st May, 2011 and if he answers in the affirmative, what happened on that day. (2mks)
QUESTION 4: Can you recall 1st May, 2011? Did anything happen on that date? If he answers yes, tell the court what happened on that day. (2mks)
QUESTION 5: The main aim of examination if chief is to elicit or obtain favourable facts or evidence in support of the case of the party who called the witness. (2mks)
QUESTION 6: Counsel should not have asked the question because;
(a) It was irrelevant to the proceedings
(b) It was not meant to discredit or test the veracity of the witness
(c) It was embarrassing, scandalous and insulting
It can be objected to even under cross examination s 205 Evidence Act. (3mks)
QUESTION 7: Exceptions to question in cross examination:
(a) Questions irrelevant to the proceedings
(b) Indecent and scandalous questions
(c) Question that are needlessly offensive
(d) Questions calculated to embarrass
(e) Questions intended to insult or annoy
S. 204.205 Evidence Act (4mks)
QUESTION 8: The main purposes of cross examination are as follows:
a. To elicit favourably evidence for the case of the examiner
b. To show why the evidence of the opposing party should be rejected
c. To put the cross examiners version of the case to the witness.
d. To test the witness credibility by testing his accuracy.
e. To show who the witness is to shake his credit by injuring his character
f. To destroy or neutralize the evidence of the witness
g. To obtain evidence with which to cross examine the other wintessess.
(Mention of 4 points should attract full marks) (4mks)
QUESTION 9:
The court was right in upholding the only objection
The only questions that may be asked in re-examination is to clarify ambiguities arising from the cross examination. There are no ambiguities in the case s. 1989(3) Evidence Act (2mks)
QUESTION 10:
The proper procedure is to show the ambiguities in the evidence of the witness in cross examination. (2mks)
TOTAL = 25 MARKS
QUESTION 5
1. The decision of Obi and Chika to challenge the action instituted against them by the Attorney-General is wrong. The Attorney-General has the constitutional powers to decide who to prosecute for any offence.
See Section 211(1)(a) CFRN 1999.
2. The court was right in granting the amendment.
The reason is that an amendment could include addition of a count or head of charge to an existing one and sustainable under the original charge. (2mks)
3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KOGI STATE
IN THE LOKOJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LOKOJA (1MK)
CASE NO……………………… ( ½ mk)
BETWEEN
THE STATE
………………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT
AND (1MK)
1. OBI
2. CHIKA …………………………..ACCUED/APPLICANTS
MOTION ON NOTICE
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 340(2) CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, SECTIONS 35(4) AND 36(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ( ½ MK)
TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the ………day of …………….2011 at the hour of 9 oclock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel on behalf of the appplicants may be heard praying for the following orders;
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court admitting the applicants to bail pending the determination of their trial. (1 ½ mks)
AND for such further and other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to amek in the circumstance.
Dated this…………………………….day of ………………………………..2011 ( ½ mk)
T.K Moneyback,
Counsel for Applicants,
14, Great Chamber Street,
Lokoja, Kogi State ( ½ mk)
FOR SERVICE ON
State Counsel,
Ministry of Justice,
Lokoja, Kogi State.
(NOTE: If a student drafts a motion for each of the accused persons, only the partiesshould be marked in the second application. This will be half of the marks allotted for parties. )
4) The Prosecuting Counsel was right in calling only seven witnesses listed in the proof of evidence. The Prosecuting Counsel is only bound to call sufficient witnesses to proff his case. See JAMMAL v. STATE: ADAJE v. STATE. (2MKS)
5) The judgement of the Court shall be delivered within 90 days of final address.
See Section 294(1) CFRN 1999.
However, where the judgement is delivered outside 90 days, it remains valid exept the Court is satisfied there is a miscarriage of justice against the appellant.
See Section 294(5) CFRN, 1999.
The judgment although delivered 93 days after the final address is vlaid (3mks)
QUESTION 6 A:
(i) The effect of a confessional statement made involuntarily is that the it is inadmissible evidence. S. 27 Evidence Act ( ½ mk)
(ii) The court will admit the statement in evidence and consider it with other pieces of evidence in arriving at its decision. ( ½ mk)
(iii) The confessional statement made by George is not binding on dibo except it is admitted by Dibo ( ½ mk)
(iv) IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA ( ½ MK)
CASE NO: ( ½ MK)
BETWEEN: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ………COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT
( ½ MK)
AND
1. GEORGE
2. DIBO ………………………………………………………..ACCUSED/APPLICANTS
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I Adame Ibe, Male, Muslim, Nigeria Citizen, Police officer attached to Zone 4, police station at No. 20, Masalasi Street, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am the Investigating Police Officer in this case and by virtue of my positionI am conversant with the facts of this case.
2. That I arrested the accused persons on 6th June, 2011 at the Lokama Close, Zone 4, Abuja.
3. That the accused persons are notorious gangsters who had terrorized the Abuja Metropolis for about six months and wanted by the police.
4. That I have seen a copy of the motion for bail by the first accused person deated 14th June, 2011 and the supporting affidavit.
5. That the averments in paragraphs 2 to 7b of the affidavit are untrue.
6. Tghat the first accused person while in police custody offered me bribe in the sum of N5,000.00 to enable me release him.
7. That if the accused person is admitted to bail there is strong likelihood that the accused person will jump bail.
8. That I make this counter affidavit bona fide believing same to be the truth and in accordance with the Oath Act. (2mks)
…………………..( ½ mk)
DEPONENT
Sworn to at the High Court Registry
Abuja this……………..day of ………………2011
( ½ mk)
BEFORE ME
COMMISSISONER FOR OATHS
( ½ MK)
a. Court unfettered
b. The charge sheet read to the accused persons in the language that he understands by the registar and same is expalined to him to the satisfaction of the court. S. 215 CPA.
c. The accused will personally take his plea to the counts KAJUGBO v STATE (1mk)
(iv) A defence counsel can make a no case submission on the following grounds:
a. Where there is no evidence to prove the essential ingredients of the offence
b. Where the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses has been so discredited as a result of cross examination or
c. Where the evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable court or tribunal could safely convict on it. IBEZIAKO v COP; R v COKER; s. 286 CPA (1MK)
(v) The effect of a no case submission rightly upheld by the court in this case amounts to acquittal of the accused person. S. 301 CPA ( ½ MK)
6C
(1) (iii) the disposition of judge ( ½ mk)
(2) (c) motion on notice with an affidavit ( ½ mk)
(3) (a) to clarify ambiguities ( ½ mk)
(TOTAL = 15MKS)
