FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. CHARLES AKAEZE (2024)

1.0. CASE TITLE AND CITATION 

Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Charles Akaeze (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1951) 1 (S.C.).1 

2.0. COURT’S NAME AND BENCH 

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, and the panel of justices included:

• John Inyang Okoro, J.S.C 
• Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C 
• Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, J.S.C 
• Tijjani Abubakar, J.S.C 
• Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, J.S.C 

It has a divisional bench. 

3.0. DATE OF JUDGEMENT 

 The judgment was delivered on the 1st of March, 2024, with suit number SC/355C/2019. 

4.0. PARTIES INVOLVED 

Appellant: 

The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) is represented by the Federal Ministry of Justice. The government prosecuted the case against the respondent for going contrary to sections 2(3), 8(5), and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) by Act No. 1 of 2012.2 

Respondent: 

Akaeze, the accused person charged with money laundering. He made a confessional statement during police interrogation, but later argued that it was obtained without following the rules of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.3 

5.0. FACTS OF THE CASE 

The respondent, Akaeze and two other persons, were arrested and trialed before the Federal High Court for two count charge of conspiracy and failure to declare the sum of One Hundred and Two Thousand and Eighty Five United State of America Dollars ($102,885) to the officers and men of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) 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. 

During police interrogation, he made a confessional statement admitting to the crime. On May 20, 2016, during the trial before the High Court, in the course of the trial, the prosecution sought to tender the extrajudicial statements of the respondent through the prosecution witness but the defense lawyer objected to the admissibility of the confessional statement. The objection was based on the fact that the statement was not recorded in the presence of a legal practitioner or by audio-visual means, as required by Section 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA).4 

On May 15, 2017, the trial court, presided over by Justice A. M. Anka, delivered its ruling regarding the trial-within-trial proceedings, and despite the objection, the trial court admitted the statement into evidence and convicted the respondent. Dissatisfied, Akaeze appealed to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was indeed heard and judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal (Lagos) on March 19, 2018, allowing the appeal. The trial court’s ruling admitting the appellant’s extrajudicial statements on 9/10/2015 and 19/1/2015 was set aside. In its place, the Court of Appeal directed that the said statements be rejected in evidence. It shall be so marked, which ruled in his favor and set aside the conviction, holding that the confessional statement was wrongly admitted.5 The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) then appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed the appeal. 

6.0. ISSUES RAISED 

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues: 

• Whether the provisions of sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA are mandatory, such that non-compliance renders a confessional statement inadmissible. 
• Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in rejecting the extra-judicial statements and ordering a retrial/reassignment of the case. 
• Whether the use of the word “may” in sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA means it is permissive (i.e., optional) or mandatory. 

7.0. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

Appellant (Federal Republic of Nigeria): 

The appellant, through the prosecution argued that the confessional statement made by the respondent during trial and after submission was rightly admitted by the trial court and the fact that there was no video recording or presence of a legal practitioner during the statement did not render it inadmissible. The Appellant further argued that sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) are directory and not mandatory. Using section The prosecution claimed that what mattered is whether the statement was made voluntarily using section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011, which defines confession is defined as ” … the admission claimed that any time by what person who was with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”.6 The Evidence Act goes further in Section 29 (1) that in any proceedings, “a confession made by a defendant may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the Court in pursuance of this Section”.7 

The Appellant maintained that the Court of Appeal erred in convicting by overruling it simply because there was no proof that the confession statement was made under force or threat. It therefore urged the Supreme Court to restore the judgment of the trial court. 

Respondent (Charles Akaeze): 

The respondent, through his counsel, argued that the confessional statement was made in violation of section 15(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (similar to section 9(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2011 (“ACJL”) dealing with recording of arrests quotes that “where a suspect who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteer 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 virtual means”.8 

Section 17(2) of ACJA, 2015, dealing with recording of statement of suspects quotes that “Such statement may be taken in the presence of a Legal Practitioner of his choice, or … an officer of the Legal Aid Council … or … a Civil Society Organization … or any other person of his choice…”9 

The respondent further argued that the provision is not directory or optional instead mandatory and rendering the prosecution’s failure to comply rendered it inadmissible in order to ensure fairness in the legal system. The respondent relied on past decisions made by the Supreme Court and an example is the case of Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (2023).10 

8.0. JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, thereby upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the provisions of the ACJA impose mandatory duties on law-enforcement agencies. These are some of the judgments made by the Justices: 

My lord, Justice Saulawa (who delivered the lead judgment of the Supreme Court) held at page 22 paragraph D–E, as follows: 

“In the instant case, as aptly found by the court below, the provisions of sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA/2015 (supra) have strictly provided for recording the statement of the defendant. Thus, there is no gainsaying the fact that failure to perform the act in accordance with the dictates of those provisions of the law would be deemed to be a flagrant non-compliance with the law. In such a situation the court would be entitled to invoke its interpretative jurisdiction to hold that the non-compliance with the law is against the recalcitrant party. See Adesanoye v. Adewole (2006)11.”12 

The Court interpreted the word “may” in those provisions as imposing a mandatory requirement where a public officer is charged with a duty for the benefit of a private citizen (i.e., the suspect). The Supreme Court went on to adopt the Mischief Rule, which considers the state of the law before 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. The Supreme Court relied on Ugwu v. Ararume (2007)13; Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Ajilo (1989).14 

In the appeal against Akaeze, my lord Justice Ogunwumiju at page 26 paragraphs E–G held as follows: 

“The use of the imperative word ‘shall’ in the provision underscores its mandatory nature. The mischiefs ought to be curbed by the law includes such unsavory situations as where an alleged confession is extracted by torture and duress imposed on a defendant, which led to the confession, to avoid miscarriage of justice and to reduce to the barest minimum the incidents of retractions and time consumed by trial within trial proceedings. Section 9(3) ACJL is a mandatory procedural law against infractions on the constitutional rights of a defendant as enshrined in section 35(2) of the CFRN (as altered). Any purported confessional statement recorded in breach of the said provision is of no effect. It is impotent and worthless.”15 

My lord Justice Ogunwumiju found solace in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which had previously held in the case of Nnajiofor v. FRN (2018)16 as follows: “It has been established by a long line of decided cases that the courts would interpret the word ‘may’ as mandatory wherever it is used to impose a duty upon a public functionary to be carried out in a particular form or way for the benefit of a private citizen.” 

The reasoning of the Supreme Court is that section 15(4) of the ACJA imposes a duty on a law enforcement agency, and in such circumstances, it would be contrary to the intention of the lawmaker to allow the law enforcement agency to have discretion on whether or not to comply with the duty to record a confessional statement in the prescribed manner. The Court held that where the statutory requirements are not complied with (e.g., through audio-visual means, or not in the presence of a legal practitioner or designated person), then the purported confessional statement is inadmissible as evidence.  

The Nigerian Courts are enjoined to adopt a construction that would bring out the purpose of legislation and not the one that would defeat it. See Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980)17; Coca Cola (Nig.) Ltd v. Akinsanya (2017)18. 

9.0. RATIO DECEDENDI 

The Supreme Court held that Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) are mandatory, not optional. The Justices reasoned that the use of the word “shall” shows that law-enforcement officers must record a suspect’s confessional statement either by audio-visual means or in the presence of a legal practitioner. 

Justice Saulawa, delivering the lead judgment, stated that failure to comply with these sections amounts to a flagrant violation of the law, citing Adesanoye v. Adewole (2006)19. Justice Ogunwumiju agreed, noting that the rule protects suspects from torture or coercion and ensures fair hearing under section 35(2) of the 1999 Constitution.20 The Court applied the Mischief Rule, holding that the ACJA aims to stop forced confessions. It relied on Ugwu v. Ararume (2007)21 and Friday Charles v. State of Lagos, (2023)22. 

In summary, any confession not obtained in line with Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA is inadmissible, no matter how voluntary it appears. 

10.0. CONCLUSION 

The decision in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Akaeze is a major step toward protecting the constitutional rights of criminal suspects in Nigeria. It confirms that police officers must follow Sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the ACJA 2015, which require that confessional statements be recorded on video or in the presence of a legal practitioner. 

The Supreme Court made it clear that no confession obtained contrary to these rules can stand in court. This judgment strengthens accountability in police investigations and ensures fairness in the criminal justice system. From an intern’s view, the case teaches that respecting due process is as important as proving guilt. It also reminds legal practitioners that the courts will not tolerate shortcuts that violate the rights of accused persons.

REFERENCE(S): 

A. Case Law 

• Fed. Republic of Nigeria v. Akaeze, (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1951) 1 (S.C.) (decided Mar. 1, 2024). 
• Adesanoye v. Adewole, (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 242 (S.C.). 
• Ugwu v. Ararume, (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 365 (S.C.). 
• Friday Charles v. State of Lagos, (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1901) 213 (S.C.).
• Nnajiofor v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 157 (C.A.).
• Kareem v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, (2023) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1897) 412 (S.C.).
• Coca Cola (Nig.) Ltd v. Akinsanya (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1593) 74, 123.
• Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 130. 
• Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305. 

Statutes and Other Legislations 

• Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. 
• Evidence Act, 2011. 
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). 
• Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2011. 
• Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended).