STATE V. GWONTO & ORS
| Pages | 104-119 |
STATE V. GWONTO & ORS
104
STATE V. GWONTO & ORS
5
THE STATE
APPELLANT
V
10 SALIHU MOHAMMED GWONTO
AND 4 ORS
RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. SC 69/1982
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
FATAL-WILLIAMS, C.J.N.
15
BELLO,
J.S.C.
IDIGBE,
J.S.C.
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
ESO,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
20
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
18th March, 1983
Criminal Procedure - Constitutional Right to fair hearing - Right of Accused
person to an interpreter under S.33(6)(e) of 1979 Constitution, and under 5.241
25
Criminal Procedure Code - And under 5.241 and 242(2) of Criminal Procedure
Code.
Evidence - Judicial Proceedings - Presumption of regularity and legitimacy
30
ISSUES:
1.
Whether an accused person who had legal representation and raised no
objection to non-interpretation of proceedings at trial can be heard to complain
of such non-interpretation on appeal.
2.
How may the presumptions of regularity and legitimacy in favour of court
35
proceedings be rebutted on appeal?
FACTS:
The Accused persons were charged with various offences. 7 were discharged
and 5 were convicted. The Respondents appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal
that they did not have a fair trial as the proceedings had been conducted in Eng-
40
lish and had not been interpreted to them in Hausa. As a result the Respondents
contended that s. 33(6)(e) of the 1979 Constitution, s.241 and S.242(2) of the Crimi-
nal Procedure Code had been infringed; The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the
Respondents' appeal and set aside their convictions and sentence. The State ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court.
45
HELD:
1. The right to an interpreter only arises under s.33(6)(e) of the 1979 Constitution
where the Accused person cannot understand the language used at the trial of
the offence. It is the duty of the Accused person or counsel acting on his behalf,
to bring to the notice of the Court the fact that he does not understand the
50
language in which the trial is conducted, otherwise it will be assumed that he
has no cause for complaint. In the instant case, not only were the Accused
persons able to speak English and Hausa, there was nothing to indicate to the
court that the accused persons did not understand the proceedings.
105
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1983] N.S.C.C.
S.242(2) of the C.P.C. states that the record of proceedings shall state the name
of the interpreter, the languages from and to which he interprets and that he
has been bound on oath to interpret truly. The section therefore places the
onus on the accused persons to show affirmatively that a miscarriage of justice
has been occasioned by non-compliance. The Federal Court of Appeal was
5
therefore ‘Arong in setting aside the judgment of the High Court without taking
fresh evidence.
2. That unless it appears clearly from the record that an appellant did not
understand the language used at the trial and that interpretation for his benefit
was refused, the following presumptions arise: (i)
Omnia praesumuntur rite et
10
solemniter esse acta
(all acts are presumed to have been done rightly and
regularly) and (ii)
Omnia praesumuntur legitima facia donec probetur in
contrarium
(all things are presumed to have been legitimately done, until the
contrary is proved). These presumptions can only be rebutted by clear proof
of the contrary even where the trial judge (as in this case) had failed to indicate
15
in his record the names of the interpreter and the fact that he was sworn. Such
failure by the trial judge only strengthens this necessity of proof in rebuttal.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Rex v. Peter KaIle
(1937) 3 W.A.C.A. 197.
2.
Queen v. Eguabor
(1962) 1 All N.L.R. 287 at 290- 291.
20
3.
Locknan and Anor v. The state
(1972) 5 S.C. 22.
4.
D.P.P. v. Akazor
(1962) 1 All N.L.R. 235.
5.
Nafiu Rabic, v. The State
(1980) 8-11 S.C. 130.
6.
Ajayi and JJlande Jos v. Zaria N.A.
(1964) N.N.L.R. 61.
7.
Muhammadu Arab v. Bauchi Native Authority
(1965) N.N.L.R. 48.
25
8.
Ubi Yola v. Kano N.A.
(1961) N.R.N.L.R. 103.
9.
Abdu Noma v. Zaria N.A.
(1963) N.N.L.R. 97.
10.R. v.
Furlong
(1950) 1 All E.R. 636.
11.R. v.
Kahiski
(1967) 2 All E.R. 398.
12.R. v.
Berkeley
(1969) 2 Q.B. 446.
30
13. Edun & Ors. v. Inspector-General of Police
(1966) 1 All N.L.R. 17 at 21
14.R. v.
Lee Kun
(1916) 1 K.B. 337.
15. Ibrahim Shinfida v. Commissioner of Police
(1970) N.N.L.R. 113.
16.Mraz v. The Queen
(1954-56) 93 C.L.R. 493, 514.
17.
Taylor Mbi v. Numan Native Authority
(1959) N.R.N.L.R. 11 at 12.
35
18.Abdul Dan Sarkin Noma v. Zaria N.A. (1963) N.M.L.R. 97 at 102.
Mr. G.O.K. Ajayi, S.A.N.
(with him
Messrs A.K. Dabi, Dolu Segun, S.O. Shonibare
and
Miss Ayo Ogunsola)
for Appellant.
Mr. Gaily Brown-Peterside, S.A.N.
(with him
Messrs J.O. Edremoda
and
J.C.
40
Azinge)
for Respondents.
NNAMANI, J.S.C.
(Delivering the Judgment of the Court): On 8th July, 1980,
23 accused persons were arraigned before Obi-Okoye, C.J. sitting at the Langtang
High Court, Plateau State charged with various offences against sections 229(1),
45
85 and 97 of the Penal Code (Cap.89 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963). These
offences arose out of an incident on 18th July 1979 at Bashar Wase Local
Government area of Plateau State in which ALHAJI Abdulkadir Zakari who had then
just been elected a Member of the House of Representatives was attacked with
knives, horns, stones and sticks allegedly by members of a rival political party.
50
The 1st respondent Alhaji Salihu Mohammed Gwonto was Alhaji Abdulkadir's
opponent in the said election. At the end of a trial in which 9 witnesses testified,
the learned trial Chief Judge discharged 7 of the accused persons, convicted the
rest and sentenced them on various terms of imprisonment (or in some cases
To continue reading
Request your trial