Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge TUESDAY 22nd OCTOBER, 2013 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/162/2013 Between: Attorney General of the Federation Complainant AND Magnus Iheanacho Defendant APPERANCES Ugo Ugbunude, Mrs. with Aye Olatunde Mrs. for the prosecution Mr. Nathaniel Nwoke for the defendant . RULING This is an oral application for bail made pursuant to section 349 (1) of the criminal procedure code laws of the federation of Nigeria and under section 36(5) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended; Mr. Nathaniel Nwoke counsel to the defendant / applicant submitted that the defendant/ applicant will not jump bail, neither will he interfere with the investigation of the case. He submitted further that the applicant has no criminal record and he will not commit any further offence. Counsel submitted that the applicant has reasonable sureties to take him on bail and urged the court to grant him bail on magnanimous terms. In opposing this application for bail Mrs. Ugo Ogbunude, the prosecutor in this case submitted and agreed with the counsel to the applicant to the effect that the charge before the court is a bailable one. She submitted further that bail is at the discretion of the court but that in granting bail, certain factors need to be considered; such as whether the accused person i.e the defendant in this case will jump bail. She referred the court to the history and antecedent of the case since the 21st of September 2010 to date at the Federal High Court Abuja. Counsel submitted further that ever since the arraignment of the applicant, nothing has really happened in teams of progressing on the trial of the case apart from the plea of the applicant that was taken and the argument on the issue of jurisdiction which was raised and eventually led to the transfer of this case to this court by the Federal High Court. She submitted further that the delay in the trial and conclusion of this matter at the Federal High Court was due to the antics of the applicant /defendant and his counsel. These antics she said took the forms of several adjournments and the absence of the defendant/applicant in court. She posited and submitted further that bail was granted to the defendant /applicant by the Federal High Court but the applicant jumped the bail. Furthermore, she submitted that since the matter was transferred to this court and the National Industrial Court became seized of this matter the defendant/applicant had jumped bail on two occasions without Justifiable reasons. She submitted that the absence of the applicant/defendant in court on these previous occasions led to the revocation of the bail and the issuance of the bench warrant which eventually brought the accused person to court. She therefore urged the court to refuse the bail application. On point of law, the applicant/ defendants reply centres on presumption of innocence which weighs in favour of the applicant. He submitted that the persecutor has not brought out any law to back up the issue of antics and therefore urged the court to jettison and discountenance the prosecutors’ opposition. I have considered carefully the nature of this case, the history and antecedent of this matter and the respective arguments of the counsel in this case. The defendant /applicant is facing a three count charge of causing unlawful carnal Knowledge of a minor punishable under section 13 (1) of the trafficking in persons prohibition law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as amended; procuring a minor under false pretence to have carnal connection punishable under section 18 (b) of the Trafficking in persons prohibiting law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as amended, and lastly employing a minor as a domestic help outside her family environment punishable under section 22 (1) (d) of the trafficking in persons prohibiting law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as amended. The maximum punishment for the offences is ten years imprisonment and or a fine not exceeding N200, 000.00 only. The combine effect of sections 349 (1) of the criminal procedure code and the sections 13, 18 and 22 of the Trafficking in persons prohibiting law enforcement and administration Act 2003 as contained in cap T 23 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 shows clearly that the defendant/ applicant is being charged with bailable offence and the counsel on both sides are ad idem on this issue. Under section 36(5) of the 1999 constitution, there is a presumption in law in favour of the liberty and innocence of an accused /defendant until he is found guilty. It is my candid view that in all applications for bail, the onus is on the prosecution to show, upon the facts disclosed in the case that an accused person/defendant is not the type that should be released on bail; without the slightest intension of saying that in all events and cases, bail should be granted to an applicant; it is my view that only where all the conditions stated below are pointing negatively to an application for bail or where there are strong reasons suggesting that an applicant will not come back for his trial or that he may likely commit more offences if granted bail, then bail will be refused see Eyu Vs. State 1988 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 602. On principles guiding grant or refusal of application for bail the following factors or criteria may be taken into consideration by a court in granting or refusing bail pending trial as in this case; (a) The evidence available against the accused /defendant (b) Availability of the accused to stand trial. (c) The nature and gravity of the offence; (d) The likelihood of the accused /defendant interfering with the course of justice, (e) The likelihood of the accused /defendant committing another offence while on bail; (f) The criminal antecedent of the accused person. (g) The likelihood of further charge being brought against the accused/defendant; (h) The probability of guilt (i) Detention for the protection of accused/defendant These factors may not be relevant or applicable in all cases and they are not exhaustive see Bamaiyi Vs. State 2001 8 NWLR Pt. 715 Pg 270 at 36 2 paragraph B-F. Clinemelu Vs. Cop (1995) 4 NWLR Pt 390 at 467 Abacha Vs. State 2002 5 SCM 139 ratio 8. Anagomba Vs. FGN 2004 13 NWLR Pt. 890, page 267-269 ratio 2 . Dantata Vs. Police 1958 NRNLR 3 The lone question or issue that weigh heavily on this court is whether or not to grant bail in view of the new charge before this court couple with the circumstance of the accused/ defendant in this court on the 8thof October, 2013. The Issue of bail calls for an exercise of discretion which entails application of common sense, logic and reason based on a given set of facts in accordance with the dictates of justice. The accused / defendants in this case was absent from court on the 18th of July 2013 without any reason or excuse. The surety who entered into recognisance to produce the accused or discharge the bond duely entered into were equally absent. The benefit of doubt was given by the court; on the 18th of September 2013, they were conspicuously absent from trial without any valid reason or reason at all thereby forcing the court to revoke the bail and ordering bench warrant. The bench warrant was duely executed, hence the presence of the accused on the 8th of October 2013 when the case came up in court; surprisingly no reason have been advanced for the absence of the accused/applicant/defendant on the previous dates of adjournment. It therefore means and it can be inferred reasonably that the applicant has no reason for jumping the bail hitherto enjoyed by him before the revocation. This is a clear act of impunity which should not be tolerated. To make this issue of bail more critical is the fact that the count in the charge before the court now are three but the saving Grace is that there are non capital offences. It is on the basis of this fact that the court is bending backward to exercise its discretion in the grant of bail to the accused/defendant/applicant. The other reason is that the case is recently transferred to this court from the Federal High Court and the case starts de novo in this court; Consequently bail is hereby granted the accused / defendant/applicant in the sum of N300, 000 with two sureties each in like sum. The sureties who should be ordinarily resident in Abuja are to be gainfully employed with one of them being a civil servant. The sureties must swear to affidavit of means and the photograph of the accused/defendant/applicant must accompany the bail papers. ----------------------------- Hon. Justice P.O Lifu JP. Judge