Afrigather By Moshood Olajide
Since Okuneye Idris, often known as Bobrisky, has been convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment by the Federal Excessive Courtroom in Lagos following a prosecution spearheaded by the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee on the costs of naira mutilation, a number of diversionary opinions have flooded the Web area.
The cross-dresser was convicted after pleading responsible to the costs of naira mutilation; that is in step with the precept of legislation. In Dangote v. Civil Service Fee Plateau State & Ors. (2001), the court docket held that after a plea of responsible by an accused individual earlier than the Courtroom, the Courtroom should formally proceed to conviction with out calling upon the prosecution to show the fee of the offence. It’s because the request for forgiveness on the a part of the accused has absolutely glad the burden of proof.
Some faculties of thought, nevertheless, are of the view that the sentencing of six months is extreme, whereas others are of the view that the accused should be fined solely. Some, alternatively, opine that for the reason that accused opted for plea bargaining, he should have been exonerated as a first-time offender. All these are mere parlour assertions that don’t have any grounds in legislation.
As a place to begin, Part 21(1) of the CBN Act 2007 is an elaborate provision that makes mutilation of the naira punishable. For readability, you will need to reproduce the part right here in verbatim:
An individual who tampers with a coin or word issued by the financial institution is responsible of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a time period not lower than 6 months, to a high-quality not lower than $50,000, or to each such a high-quality and imprisonment.
Learn additionally: Bobrisky pleads guilty to Naira abuse charges, faces sentencing on April 9
The query now’s: in view of the above provision and contemplating the plea discount between the prosecutor and the accused authorized practitioner, along with the choice of a high-quality within the CBN Act, was the sentencing extreme in step with what has been blabbed round? The reply to this query lies within the examination of related statutory provisions.
In an in depth interrogation of Sections 270–275 of the Administration of Legal Justice Act 2015 and Article 15 of the Nationwide Coverage on Prosecution 2016, which regulate the applying of plea bargains in Nigeria, each provisions didn’t anticipate exoneration of crime or lesser sentencing if there was any settlement between the prosecutor and the defendant in respect of plea bargains. This nullifies the opinion that plea bargains should have lowered the sentencing. The appliance of plea bargaining should not defeat the attainment of considerable justice. Justice should movement on a three-way avenue in legal issues. It should result in justice for the defendant (Bobrisky), the sufferer (the naira forex), and society (the general public at giant). The court docket of appeals per Olujimi JCA places the place of plea discount succinctly in Gava Company Restricted v. FRN (2014) as follows:
An accused one that alleges that he had a plea discount with the prosecutor can’t emerge unscarred or with out blemish or stigmatisation of conviction.
A trial choose additionally has discretion in sentencing. A court docket doesn’t make pronouncements or sentences for accused individuals based mostly on what’s widespread or what the general public will assume. In Ezerike v. State (2022), the Supreme Courtroom pontificated {that a} trial choose has discretion in issues of sentencing and may impose a most sentence the place relevant, and such discretion should be exercised judiciously. As a follow-up, Part 311(2) of the Administration of Legal Justice Act, 2015, units out 4 elements that the Courtroom ought to invariably contemplate in performing its sentencing operate. The part reads as follows:
The Courtroom shall, in announcing sentences, contemplate the next elements along with sections 239 and 240 of this Act:
(a) the targets of sentencing, together with the ideas of reformation and deterrence;
(b) the pursuits of the sufferer, the convict, and the neighborhood;
(c) appropriateness of a non-custodial sentence or remedy in lieu of imprisonment;
(d) earlier conviction of the convict.
Learn additionally: Like Bobrisky, EFCC to arraign Cubana Chief Priest for naira abuse Wednesday
It’s subsequently clear that the trial court docket thought-about two units of information in giving the cross-dresser a extreme most sentence. It thought-about the information that made it really feel duty-bound to impose a sentence that might function a correction to the convict and deterrence to different individuals since problems with naira mutilation have been a critical offence gaining notoriety in society with little or no prices or arrests made to warrant conviction beforehand. It then thought-about the general public curiosity in defending the naira and curbing additional abuse.
In view of the above provisions and evaluation, the discovered trial choose seems to have been influenced strictly by balancing the precept of deterrence and public curiosity collectively with out having regard to paragraph d of Part 311(2) of the ACJA, contemplating the accused is a first-time offender.
Nonetheless, if the accused is aggrieved, it’s left for him, via his counsel, to attraction the conviction. In Adeyeye v. State (1968), Ademola, CJN (of blessed reminiscence), held that it is just when a sentence seems to err in precept that an appellate court docket will alter it. If a sentence is extreme or insufficient to such an extent as to fulfill this Courtroom that when it was handed there was failure to use the fitting ideas, then this Courtroom will intervene.
It follows that the correct discussion board to handle sentencing is on the court docket of attraction, not ventilating opprobrium remarks on social media and placing the judiciary to unconstructive views. It’s also reemphasized right here {that a} plea discount doesn’t translate to the exoneration of an offence; if that has at all times been the case, society won’t be secure, and everybody shall be tempted to commit crime. In actual fact, plea bargaining might not affect the imposition of minimal sentencing or the imposition of only a $50,000 high-quality as punishment for mutilating the naira as stipulated in Part 21(1) of the CBN Act 2007 as some individuals anticipated; the kind of sentencing to impose is strictly on the discretion of the choose based mostly on the submissions of the prosecutor and that of counsel to the defendant, the peculiar information of the case, public coverage, and public curiosity along side sound ideas of legislation.
Moshood Olajide writes from the School of Legislation, Obafemi Awolowo College, Ile–Ife, Osun State.
