Month: July 2021

If you’re like me, there are chances that you have travelled before in a means of public transport. Welllll, this is not an indication of SAPA. Nigerian roads aren’t meant for my Lamborghini Aventador😒. Hence, public transport always comes in handy for me. You will notice that after few minutes into the journey, someone, most times sitting either in the middle or back seat, starts preaching.

Overtime, the question – whether or not an individual is meant to preach in public transport – has been a recurring discourse among Nigerians which has lead to several opinions between two major camps. People in the first camp believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this act. To them, it is one of the ways in which the Gospel can get to the end of the world. On the other hand, those in the second camp hinge their argument on non-rationality and public disturbance of this act. And there is a third camp, just take me to my destination camp. These people don’t just want stress🙂.

Since we are The LegalStandpoint, our camp is all about giving you the position of the law. Truth be told, Nigeria has laws regulating almost every facet of life. The institution governing road activities in Nigeria is the Federal Road Safety Commission. By virtue of section 5 of the Federal Road Safety Commission Federal (Establishment) Act, 2007, the Commission is vested with the statutory power to enact regulations to achieve its aim and objectives. One of such regulations made which is relevant to this discourse is The National Road Traffic Regulations, 2012. (The Regulation).

Section 169(2) of the Regulation houses the offence of preaching in public transport, and section 169(4) states the punishment. Section 169(2) states that: A person shall not cause or permit to be caused any form of nuisance through preaching or hawking on a stage carriage, omnibus, or other passenger carrying commercial vehicle while in motion. Speaking in the same vein, section 169(4) states that: “any person who contravenes the provisions of this regulation commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of N5,000:00 or a term of 9 months imprisonment or both.”

Surprisingly, since the enactment of this regulation, there have been no recorded court cases of someone prosecuted pursuant to this law. This is a testament to the fact that the implementation of laws is a major challenge plaguing the Nigerian legal system.

Notwithstanding, by virtue of the maxim dormiunt aliquando leges, nunquan moriuntur, which translates to mean, law sometimes sleeps but never dies, it is better to know and adhere to the law so that its provision will not be raised against you.

In conclusion, preaching in a moving commercial vehicle in Nigeria is a crime punishable by payment of a fine or imprisonment or both and the lack of enforcement of this act doesn’t reduce its status of the offence.

Thank you for reading❤. See you next week🙏. Kindly subscribe to the mailing list down below if you haven’t.

This article borders on the territorial jurisdiction in criminal trial. The Court, per NGWUTA JSC, in Dariye v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2015) LPELR-SC.252/2013 defined territorial jurisdiction as a ‘geographic area within which the authority of the Court may be exercised and outside which the Court has no power to act’.

The general principle of law is that criminal trials are territorial because courts are only concerned with criminal matters that are committed in their state. This principle is reflected in the Latin maxim lex non velet extra territiorum which means that a law is not valid outside its territory. Similarly, offences in a state are created by laws of the House of Assembly of that state. Thus, a state cannot make laws for another state.

In the South, this general principle has been statutorily provided for in section 12A of the Criminal Code: whereby the provisions of any law of a State the doing of any act or the making of any omission is constituted an offence, those provisions shall apply to every person who is in the State at the time of his doing the act or making the omission. This is equally similar to what is obtainable in the Northern region of Nigeria by virtue of section 4(1) of the Penal Code

Just like every other general principle in law, this principle also has exceptions. The first exception – by virtue of section 12(2)(a) – is that where several elements of the crime are committed in different states, or where several offences are committed in different states, those states all have the jurisdiction to try the matter.

Painting a scenario, if an accused stole in Ibadan and on the same day travelled to Ado-Ekiti where he committed the offence of murder and was apprehended, the State High Court of either states has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the offences. In order to prevent double jeopardy, what is obtainable in practice is that the charge sheet usually contain the two offences in brought before that Court.

Thus, in the celebrated case of Patrick Njovens &Ors. v. State (1973) LCN1727(SC), on or about the 13th day of April, 1971 at a place between Ilorin and Bacita in the Kwara Judicial Division, one Felix Dumeh, and three others committed the offence of robbery. The accused Patrick Njovens and others sometime in April, 1971 at Ibadan having previous knowledge of the plan to commit the said offence abetted the said Felix Dumeh and others in the commission of the said offence by intentionally aiding, encouraging, and instigating the commission of the said offence by agreeing with Felix Dumeh and others and promising on oath to conceal the said offence when committed and by taking no action to prevent its commission. The defence counsel argued that the Kwara State High Court has no jurisdiction to try the accused persons under the Penal Code. The Supreme Court while interpreting section 4(2) of the Penal Code held that the Kwara State High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused persons.

Similarly in Mbah v. The State (2014) 235 LRCN 1, the first attempt on the life of the victim took place in October, 2001 in Abuja and the last and final attempt was carried out in 2003 at Aguru, Anambra State.
This Court held that the 2003 attempt on the life of the victim in Anambra State was a continuation of the earlier attempt of 2001 in Abuja and that the FCT High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the accused.

What then happens if, from our scenario, the accused subsequently enters into a separate state where no element of the offence occurs, for instance, Ondo State, and was arrested? Can the prosecution charge him for those prior committed offences at the Ondo State High Court and will the Court have the requisite jurisdiction? The answer is in the affirmative. The authority is based on section 12A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code which provides that if that act or omission occurs elsewhere than in the state, and the person who does that act or makes that omission afterwards comes into the state, he is by such coming into the state guilty of an offence of the same kind and he’s liable to the same punishment, as if the act or omission had occurred in the state and he had been in the state when it occurred.

However, it is noteworthy that if the offence is only recognized under Penal Code, criminal liability won’t exist under the Criminal code upon the commission of the offence. Hence, in the locus classicus case of Aoko v Fagbemi (1961) 1 ALL NLR 400, the Court held that the husband who committed adultery in the North which is an offence by virtue Section 387 and 388 of the Penal Code, cannot be held guilty under the Criminal Code because adultery is not an offence in the South.

Thank you for reading🤗. See you next week.

Kindly subscribe to the mailing list below, if you haven’t. Thank you, once again.