A human right lawyer and activist, Tope Akinyode, is asking the court to vacate its judgement on the case of an Abuja Taxi Driver, Emmanuel Imhoudu, who was prosecuted for protesting naked.
He was convicted to six months imprisonment on Thursday at the Magistrates Court in Abuja.
Mr Akinyode who chose to represent the taxi driver said he was told that all through his trial and conviction, he was not represented by any lawyer.
“As a matter of fact, he has not even availed a copy of the charge sheet against him to know in clear terms what his offences are. Furthermore, in convicting Imhoudu, the Magistrates ordered him to pay a fine of 30 thousand naira for the 3 offences he was convicted for or be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
“Interestingly, he was also requested to issue a public apology on a television network. Imhoudu has already paid the 30 thousand naira but we will be challenging the judgment at the earliest possible time tomorrow because the whole trial is a charade that is bound to be set aside.
“By virtue of Section 35 (2) of the Constitution, any person who is arrested is entitled to have an audience with his lawyer. Further, by virtue of Section 36 (6) of the Constitution, a Defendant must be made to properly understand his offence, given adequate opportunity and time to prepare his case, make his defence and adequately defended by a lawyer.
“This is the whole essence of fair hearing, which, as the courts have held must not be violated unless it would render any judgement of court reached without fair hearing absolutely null and void.
In INEC v. DPP & ORS (2014) LPELR-22809(CA) the Court held that:
“Lack of fair hearing vitiates the whole trial as however convincing the case it is after a full consideration of the case made by all the parties on record that the court can make a just determination of the issues in controversy”.
“This was also the position of law in PAM v. Mohammed (2008) LPELR 2895 SC; (2003) 16 NWLR Pt.1112 Pg. 1; Forcados Oro Obodo v. Stafford Olomu (1987) 3 NWLLR Pt.59 Pg. 111; Ahangba Ibom & 3 Ors. v. Kulugh Gaji (1997) 6 NWLR Pt.509 Pg. 526
“It is quite interesting to note that by virtue of Section 5 of the Quaratine Act under which the Presidential regulation which Mr Imhoudu purportedly flouted was made, the maximum fine or monetary punishment that a Defendant is the sum of N200 or imprisonment for a term of six months. There is also no provision to issue a television apology after conviction, which if allowed could demoralise the convicted person and suffer him double jeopardy.
“In essence, the fine of 10 thousand naira and television apology for violating the restriction order of the president finds no expression under any known law.
“Against the foregoing and upon Mr Imhoudu’s instruction, we shall approach the Magistrates court today asking it to vacate its judgement which clearly has no legal basis.”
