LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Rights of Accused — Assignment of Counsel in Capital Cases — Consent of Accused Not Required
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The duty imposed on the court to assign counsel to defend an accused person who is unable to brief a legal practitioner for his defence in a capital offence does not require the consent of or any consultations with such an accused person before the same may be discharged.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Okon v. The State (1995) NLC-571994(SC) at p. 10; Paras. A–B.
"...this duty imposed on the court to assign counsel to defend an accused person who is unable to brief a legal practitioner for his defence in a capital offence does not, in my view, call for or require the consent of or any consultations with such an accused person before the same may be discharged."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The court may assign counsel to an indigent accused in a capital case without the accused’s consent. The duty is to ensure fair hearing. The principle applies to all capital offences. The accused cannot refuse assigned counsel and then complain of lack of representation. The rule protects the accused’s right to a defence. The court must ensure that assigned counsel is competent. The principle promotes the administration of justice.