Category: Law

Hello Readers,

In order to prepare for exams, we would be taking a break from the publication of articles for six(6) weeks.

While we are on hiatus, you can read up on past articles.

We would be back on June 15.

We are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. Thank you.

The term ‘armed robbery’ is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition as robbery committed by a person carrying a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the weapon is revealed or used. In Eke v State (2011) LPELR-1133(SC), the supreme court defined armed robbery as the act of stealing with violence used or threatened. Armed robbery is different from robbery because the former involves the use of some specific weapons as provided by the law.

As held in Okpulor vs. State (1990) NWLR Part 164, the three elements of the offence of armed robbery are: (a) that there was a robbery or a series of robberies; (b) each robbery was an armed robbery; and (c) that the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.

The crux of this week’s article is to answer the question of when can a person be deemed to have committed /participated in an armed robbery.

The principle of law is that where it is established by the prosecution that an accused was among the robbers and they were armed with offensive weapons, he is guilty of armed robbery. Hence, it is immaterial that the accused did not carry any weapon. The mere presence of the accused with others, armed with offensive weapons even if only one was armed with an offensive weapon, is enough to find him guilty of the offence.

So, in Mohammed v State (2022) LPELR-57830(SC), the supreme court held that: “the fact that the appellant denies wielding the knife does not absolve him from the guilt of the offence. It is in fact not necessary to prove that an accused was armed. It will suffice if it is shown that he is a member of an armed gang.“

In conclusion, in proving the last ingredient of the offence of armed robbery, the law is that any member of the gang if armed means it is an armed robbery. In fact, the accused may not necessarily be the one armed.

Thank you for reading. See you in June. We would be taking a break for now due to examination preparation.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition, on page 1351 defines Public Office as a position whose occupant has the legal authority to exercise a government sovereign power for a fixed period. An officer is defined by the same dictionary on Page 1193 as a person who holds an office of trust, authority, or command. In public affairs, the term – public officers refer to persons holding public office under a national, state, or local government and authorised by that government to exercise some specific functions. 

The Interpretation Act Cap 123 LFN 2004 defines a public office holder as an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public. In Nigeria, the law protecting Public Officers is the Public Officers Protection Act, similarly in most States in  Nigeria as Public Officers (Protection) Law. Ubiquitously, the protective section is section 2.

Section 2 of the Act, provides: “where any action, prosecution, or other proceedings is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any law or any public duty or authority or in respect of any such law, duty, or authority, the following provisions shall have an effect –(a) the action, prosecution, or proceedings shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months after the act, neglect, or default complained.”

In simple terms, the general effect of this provision is that no court will have the competence to sit on a matter brought against a public officer outside the statutory three months time frame. 

The rationale behind this law is to protect a public officer from detraction and unnecessary litigation. As held in Sani v President of Federal Republic of Nigeria (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt.1746) 151, the provision of section 2 is to protect public officers acting in the execution of public duties from litigation. 

In Aroyame v Governor of Edo State (2023) 1 NWLR 549, the appellant was removed as the Auditor General of  Edo State by the Governor of the State with effect from 1st October 2000. The information was conveyed to the appellant by a letter dated 28th September 2000 signed by the secretary to the State Government. By a further letter dated 29 September 2000, the appellant was retired from the Civil Service with effect from 30th September 2000.  Six months after and on 3rd April 2001, he commenced a suit against the respondents. The Supreme Court per Kekere-Ekun JSC held that the matter was statute-barred. The learned justice further opined that the effect of a statute of limitation is to denude a plaintiff of his action, that is his right of enforcement and right to judicial relief. 

However, it is pertinent to state that protection under section 2(a) of the law is not a blanket shield to be carried and used by public officers to blatantly indulge in illegalities and the perpetuation of injustice whenever their officials acts are challenged in Court. In Offoboche v Ogoja Local Government &. Amor (2001) 16 NWLR (PT. 739) 458, the SC held: “the Public Officers (Protection) law is designed to protect the officer who acts in good faith and does not apply to acts done in abuse of office and with no semblance of legal justification. Thus, the law will not apply if it’s established that the defendant had abused his position to act maliciously. In such a state, he has abused his position for the purpose of doing wrong and the protection of the law would never apply to such a case.”

Hence, in Awolola v Governor of Ekiti State &Ors  (2018) LPELR-46346 SC, one of the issues for determination was whether or not the act of relocating the Local Government Headquarters from Eda-Oniyo to Iye-Ekiti was legal or not. The headquarters of Ilejemeje was established by statute, that is Decree No 36 of 1996. Its relocation could only be effected through another statute promulgated by the same competent authority. The Court stated that “I have flipped through the record of this appeal and I have not found any evidence that Decree No 36 of 1996 has been repealed by a subsequent law that has relocated the headquarter of ilemeje local government from Eda oniyo to Iye Ekiti….the respondents knew and had every reason to know that the location of Ilemeje Local Government headquarters at Eda-Oniyo was made through a statute and that same could be relocated only by Statute. The respondents’ act of relocating the headquarters without the enabling statute was held by the Court to be done male fide and without legal justification. Hence, they are not protected by the Public Officer Protection Law of Ekiti State.“

So when it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the public officer acted maliciously or outside the scope of his duties granted to him by the Constitution or statutes establishing that office, he will automatically lose the protection of the law or act. Hence, the mandatory three months time frame will not be put into consideration. 

However, the Courts in several cases propounded a number of exceptions to the protection provided for public officers under the Act. In FGN v  Zebra Energy LTD (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.798) 162, the Court held that the public officers (protection) law does not apply in cases of recovery of land, breaches of contract, or claims for work or labour done. 

Also, in INEC v Ogbadibo LG & Ors (2015) LPELR-24839 (SC), the court held that the protection doesn’t extend to continuing damages or losses. For example, if I am a police officer and I maliciously detained the vehicle of Mr. A who runs Uber in April 2023. So what happens if Mr. A decides to commence an action against me, let’s say, October 2023, will I still be protected? No, I won’t. The reason is that the injury Mr. A will complain of is the loss of earnings from the vehicle used for commercial purposes. Hence, for every day the vehicle remains with me, he’s incurring losses. 

In conclusion, the Public Officers Protection Act/Laws is a shield that protects public officers in Nigeria. However, a public officer will lose this shield when he acts beyond the scope of his duty or acts maliciously or if the act falls within any of the exceptions.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.