Month: April 2021

Daily, crimes are committed. In some instances, the criminals being at the locus delicti (place of the crime) could last long while in some instances, before one could say, Jack Robinson, the whole operation has been concluded.

In the second limp of the foregoing where the operation happened so fast, and some accused persons were apprehended, there is usually the need for the police to either invite the victim or witnesses, as the case may be, to identify the perpetrator(s) of the crime. And it is at this stage where identification parade comes in.

An identification parade is an identification procedure of the police, in which a criminal suspect and other physically similar persons are shown to the victim or witness to determine whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator or one of the perpetrators of the crime without assistance.

Otherwise known as line up, it is used whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a witness/victim to recognize the suspect/accused who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or accused person is in dispute. This normally arises where the person who commits the offence was not arrested at the scene of the crime and has not been known by the victim or any other witness previously and the victims or witness encounter with the suspect was only in the course of the commission of the offence.

Though not statutorily provided for in the Criminal and Penal Code, it is a term that has gained prominence through judicial pronouncements in Criminal Jurisprudence. See the cases: Alufohai v The State (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1445) 172; Ogoala v The State (1991) LPELR – 2307 (SC) @ 13 A – B; Bamaiyi v The State & Ors (2001) LPELR – 731, Seun v State (2019) LPELR-SC.601/2016 etc.

Furthermore, as held in Tajudeen Alabi v The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511, an identification parade will be necessary only in the following circumstances:
(a) Where the victim or witness did not know the accused before and the first acquaintance with him is during the commission of the offence;
(b) Where the victim or witness was confronted by the suspect for a very short time; and
(c) Where the victim or witness, due to time and circumstance might not have had the opportunity of observing the features of the accused.

However, it is not in every situation that an identification parade is necessary. It is unnecessary:
(a) where there is a clear and uncontradicted eye witness account of the identity of the person who allegedly committed the crime.
(b) where a witness or the victim knew the suspect prior to the commission of the offence and has recognized him at the time of the commission of the offence
(c) where there is convincing, cogent, and compelling evidence linking the suspect to the offence. See the cases of: Adebayo v State (2014) LPELR- 22988 (SC), Moses Jua v State (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1154) 217 SC etc.

The success or otherwise of this procedural doctrine is determined by the circumstances of each case. In Seun v State (Supra), the appellant and two others were arrested on 15 September 2012 in an uncompleted building close to the house of Hon Justice Agbelusi Micheal Ayowole of the High Court of Justice, Ekiti State who was the victim of armed robbery which took place around 3 am on the same date.

After the robbery, he reported to the Police who made an arrest in the uncompleted building. Immediately the police invited the victim over, he pointed at the appellant and two others seated on the bench in the Police Station, New lyin Road, Ado Ekiti as those who robbed him. During the identification parade, he maintained his stance that the 2nd man(now appellant) was one of those who robbed him. He gave evidence that the appellant was dark in complexion, charcoal black, and wore no mask.

Giving the judgment, the court held that it is not even necessary to conduct an identification parade. In this case, PW1, the victim of the robbery, recognized the three accused persons at the Police Station, a few hours after the robbery incident when it was still fresh in his mind and the robbers were still in the neighbourhood when they were apprehended.

The court was guided by the precedent in Ukpabi v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 439 where Uwaifo JSC(as he then was) stated at page 450 that identification parade is not necessary where the witness recognized one of those who robbed him while the matter was still fresh in his mind and the man was still in the neigbourhood and within easy reach, the court held that what happened.

Similarly in Ugwu v State (the case under review), about 9pm on the 26th day of May 2002, some men with guns invaded the official residence of Mr. Christopher Ogbonna, the Chief Security Officer of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka at Nsukka Elias Avenue, University of Nigeria, Nsukka campus. The said men held Mrs. Ogbonna wife of the deceased, and her children hostage. They seized some of their properties including money. They raped two daughters of the deceased and killed Mr. Ogbonna and later escaped from the house.

On the record and from the evidence available, PW1, the son of the deceased, testified that he had known the appellant a long time ago and had met him from time to time on several occasions and at several places before the incident in their house. Also, the evidence showed that the confrontation with the appellant by PW1 was prolonged and they were face to face, in the full glare of electricity light before PW1 was ordered to put the light off. The Supreme held that given the circumstances of this case, there was no need for an identification parade to further identify him.

The Supreme Court further held that where an identification parade is unnecessary and if the one conducted was faulty, it should not affect the finding made at the court of first instance. Seun v State (Supra).

Thank you for reading. See you next week❤.

A company is one of the business organizations recognized in Nigeria. A company, when incorporated, becomes a legal person separate from those who incorporated it.

Section 18(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) provides for the minimum numbers of two people needed before the incorporation of a company. However, if the company to be incorporated is a private company, then one person can form such a company. See Section 18(2).

The general rule is that an infant cannot join in the formation of a company unless the two other subscribers are not disqualified. In context, a mother and her 15 years old child cannot form a company in Nigeria because one of the parties is below the statutory age. However, if there is a presence of a third qualified party, such a child can join in the formation.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.❤

“This school has zero-tolerance for examination malpractices. If you’re caught engaging in this act, you will be handed over to the Police” Anonymous

Have you heard those words before? Probably you would. I heard mine in examination halls when I was at Obafemi Awolowo University. Back then, it didn’t make sense to me. It wasn’t meant to actually😊. Then, my stance was that examination malpractice is an internal affair of the University, why should the Police be involved? In course of this article, we will proffer an answer.

Academic institutions are statutory bodies established pursuant to an enabling enactment. For instance, the University of Ibadan Act 1962 established the University of Ibadan. The Act, like all establishment Acts of all academic institutions in Nigeria, sets out the rules and regulations governing the activities of all actors in the university. For instance, Section 11 centers on the Discipline of Students.

Examination malpractice is an academic dishonesty contrary to the official rules governing an examination which aims to give the malpractitioner an undue advantage. In Nigeria, examination malpractice is both an administrative wrong and a crime.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to examine the effects of the principle held in Garba &Ors v University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18)550 on this subject matter. In that case, the appellants were expelled by the respondent for riotous behaviour which led to vandalization of properties and assault on persons. The Court held that the appellants’ acts were crimes which the guilt or otherwise could only be determined by the Courts. Accordingly, the purported investigation by the Investigating Panel and Disciplinary Board and the punishment meted out to the appellants cannot stand and are declared a nullity.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has modified the position of the law stated in Garba and Ors. v. University of Maiduguri (supra). In the case of Federal Civil Service Commission and Ors. v. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.1O6) 652, 679, Eso JSC (as he then was) held that “I would like to emphasise herein that the decision in Garba should not be taken as a prohibition of instituting disciplinary measures against civil servants (students) where there has been a criminal charge or accusation. This principle was also reiterated in University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu and Ors. (No.2) (2007) 17 NWLR (pt.1063)

Relying on these authorities, the management of any institution has the authority to discipline any student or group of students who engaged in examination malpractices notwithstanding an element of criminality. Nevertheless, the courts are ever ready to swing into action when the Constitutional Rights of fair hearing of the students are breached.

The doctrine of Fair Hearing states that an accused person, whether be before the regular courts or before Tribunals, Boards, or Panels of Inquiry, must be given the opportunity to:
(a) Know what is alleged against him. (b) Be present when any evidence against him is tendered.
(c) be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict such evidence, including cross-examination of the witnesses presented by his accuser(s).

The disequilibrium of power between academic institutions and students has lead to a blatant violation of this right by the former. In Futminna &Ors v Olutayo (2017) LPELR-SC.344/2009, the Supreme Court condemned the action of the appellant for expelling the respondent without listening to her side of the story.

EXAMINATION MALPRACTICE AS A CRIME
Crime, used interchangeably with offence, is an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment under any written law. It is a public wrong and prosecuted by the State.

Examination Malpractice is an offence under section 1 and punishable under section 1(2)(a) of the Examination Malpractices Act. In the case of a person under the age of eighteen years, a fine of Nl00,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment; in the case of a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of an examination, an imprisonment for a term of four years without the option of a fine; and in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of three years without the option of a fine.

Furthermore, when satisfactorily established that a student engaged in examination malpractices and the university management observed the principle of fair hearing before meting out the civil punishment, nothing stops the Police from arresting such a person and commencing a criminal action against him. The gist – shora fun examination malpractices.

In conclusion, examination malpractices is both an administrative wrong and a crime. The former is within the purview of an academic institution while the latter is an offence against the state. In determining allegation of examination malpractices against a student(s), academics institutions must comply with the principle of fair hearing. Failure to adhere will lead to nullity of the proceeding.

Thank you for reading🙏. See you next week❤.