Whether only a Court of law or a judicial Tribunal is competent to hear and determine any allegation of crime
"Whereas, 1st Respondent is established by law to investigate complaints raised against members of the medical and dental practice over their professional conduct, and to prepare or recommend those having prima facie cases for trial by the 2nd Respondent (See Section 15(1) (3) (4) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, LFN 2004), when it comes to allegation of criminal wrongdoing and/or conduct amounting to crime, the 1st and 2nd Respondents are expected to stay action, until the allegation of crime is established against the accused by a competent Court, or the allegation is admitted by the accused person at the Investigating Panel.
The reason for this is obvious, because trial for crime must be carried out by a criminal Court, with requisite jurisdiction, to do so. See Section 36 (1) (4) (5) - (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. See also the case of Garba vs. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NSCC Vol. 17 (Pt.1) 245 at 248 (1986) LPELR 1305 SC (cited by the parties) where the Supreme Court held. "... the offences for which the Appellants were undoubtedly held liable by the Board and the Panel include looting, arson, destruction of property and indecent assault. These are triable under the Penal Code and therefore are triable only by the regular Courts of law. Neither the Investigation Panel, nor The Disciplinary Board of the Senate, which considered its findings, is a Court of law. Neither of them was competent to adjudicate on matters connected with the rights of the Appellants, once the allegations included crimes. The attitude of this Court in relation to criminal matters in circumstances, such as occurred here, has been clearly stated in Sofekun vs. Akinyemi (1980) 5 - 7 SC 1 at 137; Fed Kayode Adams vs. The State (1966) NMLR III; Denloye vs. Medical and Dental Practitioners Committee (1968) 1 ALL NLR 306.
In Sofekun's case, Fatai - Williams, C.J.N. at page 18 said: "It seems to me that once a person is accused of a criminal offence, he must be tried in a "Court of law" where the complaint of his accusers can be ventilated in public and where he would be sure of getting a fair hearing as set out in Sub-section (4) (10) of Section 22 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. No other tribunal, investigating panel, or committee will do. That was Section 22 of the 1963 Constitution ... now Section 33 (4) - (13) of the 1979 Constitution. See also Adeyinka Laoye vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR 832." Per Nnamani JSC Of course, the Section 33 (4) - 13 of the 1979 Constitution is now Section 36 (4) - (12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
The old case above, is on all fours, with this matter, wherein the 1st Respondent (an Investigating Panel) assumed the power to investigate allegation 'falsification of autopsy report' by the Appellant, and claimed to have established prima facie case against him, recommending him for trial before the 2nd Respondent, a statutory professional tribunal (not a Court), manned by persons, completely bereft of the technicalities and nuances of the law relating to criminal prosecution/adjudication."
Per MBABA, J.C.A. in DR. RALPH EGEJURU v. MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS INVESTIGATION PANEL & ORS. (2017) LPELR-42616(CA)
