WHETHER ACCUSED/DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT DURING THE ADDRESS STAGE CAN NULLIFY AN ENTIRE CRIMINAL TRIAL?
WHETHER ACCUSED/DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT DURING THE ADDRESS STAGE CAN NULLIFY AN ENTIRE CRIMINAL TRIAL?
by Branham Chima.
Subscribe: https://branhamchima.substack.com/embed
✓ DEFINITION(S):
• Address stage: refers to the stage in a trial where the attorneys summarise their case, highlight key points, and make persuasive arguments to support their position.
• Nullify: refers to the act of declaring an action as null and void, effectively rendering it legally invalid or without legal effect.
✓ ANSWER:
Yes. In Nigeria’s criminal jurisprudence, the accused person must be present at all stages of his trial. This is an offshoot of the fair hearing principle, particularly and highly exclaimed by criminal trials. In a situation, where the accused is absent in any of the stage of his criminal trial, such will render the judgement of the Court a nullity.
Hear the court in respect in the case of State v. Andrew Yanga (SC.712/2018, 15 Jan 2021) thus: ‘The proceedings of 20/11/2015 having been fundamentally flawed on account of the trial Court’s failure to adhere to this law and the rule of natural justice of the Respondent’s right to fair hearing jeopardized and marred the proceedings since written/oral address or Counsel’s address is part and parcel of the trial of the Respondent, whose presence is required throughout until judgment. “It is an essential principle of criminal law and practice in Nigeria that the trial of an accused person for an offence has to be conducted in the presence of the accused...” See STATE v. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1354) AT PP.586.’
‘The address stage having taken place, in the absence of the Respondent on 20/11/2015, without granting an adjournment even on the compassionate ground and reason that the Respondent was absent because he lost his wife and child; was disastrous to the whole proceedings. The trial Court having known about the necessity of the presence of an accused person throughout his trial ought to have treated his absence on 20/11/2010 with kid gloves and grant an adjournment until the presence of the Respondent was secured or possibly revoke his bail and issue a bench warrant against him. Per OGUNDARE, JSC in ADEOYE v. STATE (1999) LPELR-134 (SC) (PP. 8-9, PARAS D-F) harped the point that “It is not part of our criminal jurisprudence to try a defendant in absentia. Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires a defendant to be present throughout his trial except in two cases provided for in Sections 100 and 223 of the Act.” Having emphasized that address of Counsel or written/oral address is part of the trial of the Respondent, which was done in his absence; the proceeding is bound to suffer a major setback.’
Comments
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts?