FRN v Akaeze: Criminal Investigation Simplified (1)
Introduction:
The FRN v Akaeze case has become a touchstone in Nigerian Law, addressing critical issues such as the admissibility of confessional statements and compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2012.
One fateful night in 2012, there was a loud bang on the door of this middle-aged man who had just moved to his house in the Lekki area. He was jolted from his deep sleep and before he could say Jack, four hefty men jumped into his bedroom, all hooded and wielding what looked like guns at the time. They asked him to lie on the floor and close his eyes. One of them asked him for his money, his ATM Card and pin, his watches and his gold or his life. Another one threatened to defile his wife if he failed to cooperate with them. He had no choice in this matter, as he never prepared for this invasion. In shock and panic, he led them to all items of value in his house, begging them to be merciful and to harm no one. The invaders ransacked all the rooms in his house and carted away most of his valuable assets. The trauma lasted well over two hours. He could not access anyone for help because they also took away his telephones. When it was daytime, he managed to gather himself together and made his way to the nearest police station, where he narrated his painful ordeal to the police and pleaded for help to apprehend the criminals. Through the way he described his night visitors, their style of operation and the general conduct of the dastardly raid, the police were well familiar with the robbery. They immediately set out to track the criminals through the iPhone of the victim, which was taken as part of the loot. The police eventually traced the iPhone to a market around town and they arrested the person who had custody of the telephone and through him, they were able to trace many of the invaders. Initially, they denied involvement in the crime but after days of thorough beating and ceaseless torture, they confessed and gave the police the whole story of how it happened. But this did not come easy, as their ring leader had been to the German Cell, a special torture chamber within the police station. There, he was hung upside down and a tire put round his head, with the threat to set him ablaze at night. He was already very frail, having been shot in the leg when he tried to escape during the period of his arrest. He had fainted many times during his grueling sessions in the German Cell before he finally decided to open up to the police.
The police then conducted several sessions of interviews with all the suspects and most of them wrote confessional statements of how they planned the robbery attack and executed it. The investigative procedures in the FRN v Akaeze case highlighted gaps in compliance with legal safeguards, such as the proper recording of confessional statements.
After about three months of detention, the families of the suspects were able to trace them to the police station. Their application for bail was declined by the police given the gravity of the offence committed. The family eventually secured the services of a lawyer who filed an application for bail in court. Upon serving the application for bail on the Ministry of Justice and the police legal department, they demanded for the case file for review. The application for bail was opposed and given the copious counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution, the mind of the court weighed against it and the defendants were denied bail. The case thereafter proceeded to trial. The investigating police officer who was the first witness for the prosecution, attempted to tender the confessional statements of the defendants. Counsel to one of the defendants raised an objection to the admissibility of the confessional statement, arguing that it was obtained under duress. The court conducted a trial within trial, at the end of which it became clear that the defendants truly made their statements but some of them were tortured and battered by the police in the course of investigation. The court admitted the confessional statements of the defendants and eventually convicted them at the end of the trial. Appeals were prosecuted to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, wherein the decision of the trial court was upturned.
Thw Supreme Court’s decision in the FRN v Akaeze case emphasizes the importance of protecting defendants’ rights during criminal investigations, particularly in ensuring transparency and adherence to the ACJA 2015.
In all, the case lasted about fourteen years. The above narration is only a fiction, depicting some of the happenings within the law enforcement agencies in Nigeria. In promulgating the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in 2015, the National Assembly addressed the issue of confessional statements by including provisions which require investigators to give the defendant the opportunity of having his counsel witness the process of obtaining his statement with video evidence of the session. This was not complied with by many investigators and there have been different interpretations by different courts of the true intention of the parliament. This has now been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Charles Akaeze and other cases.
The facts of the case and the decision of the Supreme Court are well captured in a report of the Nigerian Law Publications as FRN v Akaeze (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt.1951) 1. In that case, the respondent and two other persons were arraigned before the trial Federal High Court on a two-count charge of conspiracy and failure to declare the sum of $102,885 (One Hundred and Two Thousand and Eighty-Five United States of America Dollars) to the Nigeria Customs Service at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, contrary to sections 2(3), 8(5) and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) by Act No. 1 of 2012. In the course of the trial, the prosecution sought to tender the extra-judicial statements of the respondent through the prosecution witness. But the appellant objected to the admissibility of the statements on the ground that the extra-judicial statements were confessional statements made involuntarily and without complying with sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. The trial court therefore ordered a trial-within-trial. After the trial-within-trial proceedings, the trial court delivered its ruling. It found that the respondent wrote his extrajudicial statements on the first day he was taken into custody, and that there was no evidence the respondent was tortured, forced, or coerced to make the statements as he alleged. The trial court also held that the extra-judicial statements were relevant, voluntarily made in line with the law. Therefore, the trial court admitted the extra-judicial statements in evidence. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against the ruling of the trial court. The Court of Appeal held that the extra-judicial statements of the respondent should be rejected in evidence because the provisions of sections 15(4) and 17(2) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 were not complied with in taking the statements. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling of the trial court, and remitted the case to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment to another Judge for hearing and determination.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 which state as follows:
“15(4) Where a suspect who is arrested with or without a warrant, volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that making and taking of the statement shall be in writing and may be recorded electronically on a compact disc or some other audio-visual means.
17(2) Such statement may be taken in the presence of a Legal Practitioner of his choice, or where he has no Legal Practitioner of his choice, in the presence of an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria or an officer of a Civil Society Organization or a Justice of the Peace or any other person of his choice, provided that the Legal Practitioner or any other person mentioned in this subsection shall not interfere while the suspect is making his statement except for the purpose of discharging his role as a Legal Practitioner.”
On purpose of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, at page 21, paras. E-G:
“As I aptly postulated in the sister appeal (SC/353/C/2019), the fundamental purpose necessitating the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) supra, has been unequivocally provided in section 1 of the Act itself:
‘1(1) The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the system of Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal Institutions, speedy disposing of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of rights and interests of the suspect; the defendant; and the victim.’
The courts, law enforcement agencies and other authorities or persons involved in this Criminal Justice Administration shall ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act for the realization of its (2) purposes.’
We lose nothing in ensuring strict compliance with ACJA in this regard. It guarantees the transparency of the process because the video evidence itself cannot possibly be contested by the defendant, being a true reflection of what transpired at the statement recording session. It also saves the prosecution the burden of proof of voluntariness of confessional statements. The purpose of enacting ACJA should not be defeated by investigators.
On Mischief rule of interpretation of statutes at page 21, paras. B-D:
“One of the fundamental guidelines to interpretation of statutes is the mischief rule, which considers the state of the law prior to the enactment, the defect which the statute sets out to eradicate or prevent, the remedy adopted by the legislature to cure the mischief, and the actual reason behind the remedy.
In conclusion, the FRN V Akaeze case serves as a reminder of the need foe law enforcement agencies to prioritize procedural integrity to uphold justice and fairness in Nigeria’s legal system.
By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
