"The position I must say, is clear that a no case submission means that there is no evidence on which the Court could convict. In criminal litigation, the prosecution normally laid charges against a person accused. The trial commences when charges are laid and arraignment takes place before the Court. The trial of a person accused would require calling witnesses and tendering exhibits all geared towards having evidence on hand to prove the charge against the person accused. If the prosecution closes its case, Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that the Court considers to see if it appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the Defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence; the Court shall as to that particular charge discharge him.

This statutory provision is the foundation on which a person accused or defending a charge could make a no case submission. The practice and principles governing the making of a no case submission have been outlined in several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. A precise recap of some will be apt in this appeal. When a defence makes a submission that the accused has no case to answer, the meaning is that in law, there is no evidence on which, even if believed, the Court can convict - See IBEZIAKO VS. COP (1963) 1 ALL NLR, 61; (1963) SCNLR 99; AJIDAGBA VS. IGP (1958) 3 FSC 5; (1958) SCNLR 60.

Hence the question whether or not the evidence is believed is immaterial, and does not arise. Similarly the credibility of the witnesses is not in issue. The general considerations are that:

(a) An essential ingredient of the offence having not been proved, or

 (b) Where the evidence has been so discredited and rendered unreliable by cross-examination that it would be unsafe to convict on such evidence. In the case of AGBO & ORS. VS. THE STATE (2013) LPELR-20388 (SC); Fabiyi, JSC held that:

"The purport of a no case submission is that the Court is not called upon at that stage to express any opinion on the evidence before it. The Court is only called upon to take note and rule accordingly that there is before the Court no legally admissible evidence linking the accused person with the omission of the offence charged. But if there is legally admissible evidence, however slight, the matter should proceed as there is something to look at. See IGABELE VS. THE STATE (supra); AITUMA VS. THE STATE (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1028) 466."

To enable the Court before which the no case submission is pending effectively determine the no case submission, the Court must look at the offences for which the Accused person was charged and then the evidence put up by the prosecution before closing its case. It must be borne in mind by the Court that under our laws and the Constitution, it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence for which he was charged.

 In the instant case, the Respondents and others were charged on three (3) counts for offences under Sections 3(6) and 1(17) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, Cap M17 of the Revised Edition (LFN) 2007; Section 119(1)(a) of the NPA Act and Section 57(1)(a) (b) & (d) of the Act. These offences are simple contravention offences. A careful look at the law shows that the ingredients of these offences are within the said laws. For ease of reference, I wish to reproduce these laws here. Section 1(17) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act under which the first count of the charge was brought provides: Any person who without lawful authority or an appropriate licence

1. Imports, exports, sells, offers for sale, distributes or otherwise deals with or in any crude oil, petroleum or petroleum product in Nigeria; b. Does any act for which a licence is required under the Petroleum Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and in addition, any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or other conveyance used in connection therewith shall be forfeited to the Federal Government. Then Section 119(1) of the Nigerian Ports Authority Act, under which count 2 of the charge was brought provides: (1) If a ship:a. enters any port or any approach to the port without an entry notice having been issued by the Authority in respect of the ship; or
2. enters any port or any approach to the port otherwise than as permitted by the entry notice; or
3. fails to leave any port or any approach to the port or to leave any berth at the port when required to do so by the harbor master of the port, the master of the ship is guilty of an offence under this section and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of two years, without the option of a fine. 2. Where an offence under Subsection (1) of this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the apart of the owner of a ship, the owner or agent of the owner shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and liable on conviction:
4. in the case of an individual to a fine of N10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues or to imprisonment for a term of two years; and
5. in the case of a body corporate, to fine of N50,000 and a further fine of N20,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence. Section 57 of the NPA Act provides: 57. (1) The master of a ship arriving in a port shall produce or supply to the Authority a. the ship's register and the ship's papers; b. a list of all inward passengers and animals, the name of the consignee of the cargo intended to be unshipped; and
6. if (i) the whole cargo is intended to be unshipped, a copy of the bill of lading or manifest of the cargo; or (ii) part only of the cargo is intended to be unshipped, the best account in writing, in his power, of the kinds, weights and quantities of the cargo intended to be unshipped; and
7. Such other information in relation to the ship, passengers, animals and cargo thereof, as may be prescribed. Then Section 104 of the NPA Act where the punishment is provides: 104. A master of a ship who contravenes any of the provisions of Section 57 and 58 of this Act, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine of N10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment. I have taken out time to look into the laws alleged to be contravened by the Respondents and also looked into the issue of conspiracy. The Record of Appeal contains the evidence put forward by the prosecution along with all their submissions.

The ruling of the Court below is also in the Record of appeal and this is at pages 396 to 423. The Learned trial Judge in his ruling did not leave out any gap as to suggest a flop in his findings on whether there is a prima facie case disclosed from the case of the prosecution. I have gone through every line of the available evidence placed before the trial Court and there is nowhere one can fault the Lower Court in its finding that there was no prima facie case. The Lower Court guided itself well and did a thorough assessment of the evidence before it in arriving at that decision that there was truly no case to answer."

Per ADAH, J.C.A. FRN v. PETOR & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44312(CA)