"On Issue One, I do agree with every point that was made in answer to the Appellant by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In the first instance it is common knowledge that the Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2007 became effective from 1st April, 2015 but became enforceable from the 1st of June, 2015. See e.g. BAGUDU VS. YAKI (2015) 18 NWLR (PT. 1491) 299 at 319. This is because the provision of Rules 10(1), (2) and (3) RPC 2007 on the issue of stamp and seal was given an administrative effect by the circular issued by the Chief Justice of the Federation dated 12th May, 2015 with Ref. Number NJC/CIR/HOC/71 and signed by the then Chief Justice Mahmud Mohammed, GCON himself. The charge preferred against the Appellant filed on 26th April, 2015 could not in earnest have been caught on that date which was before the implementation of the Provision of Rules 10 (1), (2) and (3) RPC 2007. Learned Counsel for the Respondent was equally right to have distinguished the facts and circumstance of the case of BAGUDU VS. YAKI (Supra) heavily relied upon by the Appellant's Counsel from the facts and circumstances of the present case. BAGUDU VS. YAKI (Supra) is a Civil Case and there was no indication in the case that the Supreme Court intended to extend its interpretation of the Provision of Rules 10 (2) and (3) of the RPC 2007 to cover Criminal Proceedings as in the instant case. This is more so that Rule 10 (2) expressly referred to some legal documents but deliberately omitted the word "Charge" in the list of documents so mentioned. Furthermore, in its interpretation of Rule 10(3) the Supreme Court considered the failure to comply with Rule 10 (3) as a curable irregularity which does not affect the competence of such document. For purpose of clarity, Rule 10 (2) says: "For the purpose of this Rule legal documents shall include pleading, affidavit, deposition, application, instrument, agreement deed, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinion or any similar document" Rule 10 (3)"If without complying with the requirement of this Rule a lawyer signs or files any legal documents as defined in sub-rule 2 of this Rule and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub Rule (2) of this Rule, and in any of the capacities mentioned in sub Rule (1), the document so signed or filed shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed" The decision of the Supreme Court in BAGUDU VS. YAKI (Supra) clearly does not envisage a charge sheet in Criminal trials as one of the documents referred to under Rule 10 (2) of the RPC 2007. More important of all the answers provided to Appellant's Issue One by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that by Sections 166, 167 and 168 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Section 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code - a mistake or defect in a charge which neither embarrassed nor misled an accused person in his defence is not a sufficient reason to quash conviction. See:EMMANUEL OGUNSANYA ONASILE VS. DANIEL ADETAYO SAMI & ANOR (1962) ANLR 271 (FSC); and C.O.P. VS. CHRISTIAN OKOYE (1964) ANLR 298 (SC). This is because where a charge is defective, for the defence to succeed on an objection to the charge as defective, the defence must show he is prejudiced by the charge. Where an accused is not embarrassed or prejudiced by the defective charge, an objection to the charge will not be sustained. See: MANGAI VS THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 279) 108; Specifically, by Section 168 of the CPA "No Judgment shall be stayed or reversed on the ground of any objection which if stated after the charge was read over to the accused or during the progress of the trial might have been amended by the Court nor - a. --- b. --- c. --- d. --- e. --- f. Because of any alleged defect in substance or in form between any complaint, warrant or other process relating to the charge and the evidence adduced in respect of the charge" See also, OKEWU VS. F.R.N. (2012) 9 NWLR (PT. 1395) 327; and TORRI VS. NPSN (2011) 13 NWLR (PT. 1254) 365. Still on this, by Section 221 of the ACJA 2015, "objections shall not be taken or entertained during proceeding or trial on the ground of an imperfect or erroneous charge" ?Clearly, therefore the Appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced on the charge as presented by the Respondent (Prosecution)."

Per OWOADE, J.C.A. IN MONDAY EMMANUEL v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR-44856(CA)