“It is long settled that when interpreting the constitution or statute it is very important that the intention of the Legislature must be revealed and this can only be done by given the words used their ordinary meaning devoid of embellishments. Sections 26 and 63 of the Corrupt Practices Act state that:
"26(2). Prosecution for an Offence under this Act shall be initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation, or any authority to whom he shall delegate his authority, in any superior court of record so designated by the Chief Judge of a State or the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja under section 61 (3) of this Act; and every prosecution for an offence under this Act or any other law prohibiting bribery, corruption, fraud or any other related offences shall be deemed to be initiated by the Attorney-General of the Federation."
While Section 61 (3) supra states that:
"61(3). The Chief Judge of a State or the Federation Capital Territory Abuja, shall, by order under his hand, designate a court or judge or such number of courts or judges as he shall deem appropriate to hear and determine all cases of bribery, corruption, fraud or other related offences arising under this Act or any other laws prohibiting fraud bribery or corruption; a court or judge so designated shall not, while being so designated, hear and determine any other cases provided that all cases of fraud, bribery or corruption pending in any court before the coming into force of this Act shall continue to be heard and determined by the that court."
After examining sections 62 and 63 of the Corrupt Practices and other related offences Act, 2000, it becomes very clear that the intention of the Legislature is that for bribery, corruption, fraud or other related offences a State High Court or a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall have jurisdiction to hear such offences.”
PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C IN PROF. BUKAR BABABE V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
Summary Of Facts:
The Appellant, herein was charged along with one Janada Mshelia before the High Court of Borno State sitting at Maiduguri on an 8-count charge of conspiracy, making false statement, used their positions to confer an unfair advantage upon their relation, and to receive some amount of money, all contrary to Section(s) 26(1) c, 25(1) a, and punishable by Section(s) 25(1) b, 19, of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000,
respectively.
They both pleaded not guilty to the counts against them. At the conclusion of trial, the court in a considered judgment, found both accused persons guilty in respect of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Appellant was also found guilty in respect of counts 5, 6 and 7 but was however acquitted and discharged on count 8.
The accused persons were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with an option of N100, 000 fine in respect of counts 1 – 4, while the Appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment each in respect of counts 5, 6, and 7 without an option of fine.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the lower court. In a majority decision, the appeal was allowed in part. The Appellant's conviction and sentence in respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 was set aside. His conviction in respect of counts 5 and 6 was affirmed. In his dissenting opinion, Tine Tur, JCA allowed the appeal in its entirety and acquitted and discharged him in respect of all the counts.
Aggrieved with the majority decision, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court contending that by virtue of Section 251(1)(p) of the Constitution, the only court vested with exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences with which he is charged is the Federal High Court.
The Counsel to the Respondent on the other hand, argued that although the Federal High Court is conferred with jurisdiction to adjudicate on criminal cases and matters, the criminal jurisdiction is not exclusive.
