LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Arraignment — Requirements for Valid Arraignment — Non-Recording of Satisfaction Does Not Invalidate Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is sufficient if on the face of the record it is clear that the charge was explained to the accused before he pleaded; failure to record that the charge was explained to the satisfaction of the court does not render the trial a nullity.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Akpan v. State (2002) NLC-2092000(SC) at pp. 4–5; Paras D–A.
"It is sufficient if on the face of the record of the court, it was clear that the charge was explained to the appellant before he pleaded to it. The fact that the trial court proceeded to take the plea of the appellant is an indication that it was satisfied with the explanation of the charge to the appellant. Without doubt, it is good practice for trial courts to record that 'the charge was read and fully explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court.' But I do not think the failure to so record will render the trial a nullity."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The trial court’s decision to take the plea implies satisfaction that the charge was explained. Failure to expressly record satisfaction is not fatal. The record must show that the charge was read and explained. The principle applies the presumption of regularity. The accused bears the burden of showing non-compliance. The rule promotes substance over form. The court will not nullify a trial for mere omission to record satisfaction. Good practice requires recording satisfaction, but its absence does not automatically void proceedings. The principle applies to all criminal trials. The accused must show actual prejudice.