"I venture to state that there has been a shift in the rigid adherence to calling on an accused to enter into his defence once a prima facie case has been established against the accused as was done in Ikomi v. State (1986) 3 NWLR(Pt. 28)340.

  In Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 Belgore JSC (as he then was) in the majority judgement (with Ejiwunmi JSC, dissenting) disagreed with the opinion by the Court of Appeal that the appellant had taken a premature step of challenging the indictment when he could await the time for no case submission to move that he had no case to answer and that such challenge to quash an information should not be encouraged. 

He said at page 485:-
"With the greatest respect, in a democratic setting, as we now are, with no legislative ouster of court's jurisdiction, all perceived abuses should be tested if confidence is to be preserved for courts as final arbiter in peoples rights. 

The courts have inherent power to prevent abuse of their process by any of the parties, whether plaintiff or defendant, prosecution or defence, so that as long as democratic process exists nobody will have his rights curtailed.

All power to settle issues between parties is vested in courts and court must be vigilant that genuine issues and controversies are settled so that no accused person will be oppressed either directly or indirectly through act of prosecution; if not we shall have persecution in place of prosecution".    

PER  K. B. AKAAHS, J.S.C IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V. MR. EMMANUEL AMUTA, LER (2016)SC. 117/2012