LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Arraignment — Joint Arraignment of Multiple Accused Persons — Validity of Composite Recording of Pleas
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The charge having been read and explained to both accused in Igbo language and each pleaded not guilty, the arraignment cannot be faulted. It would have been preferable to record each plea separately. Failure to do so is not fatal so long as each understood the charge and entered an individual plea, whether recorded in direct or reported speech.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Amala v. State (2004) NLC-2312002(SC) at pp. 27–28; Paras E–A.
"The charge having been read over and explained to both accused persons in the Igbo language and each of them pleaded not guilty thereto, I find it difficult to conceive how the arraignment of the accused persons can be faulted. Without doubt, it would have been preferable for the learned trial Judge to have recorded the plea of each of the two accused persons separately in the direct speech. However, failure to do this cannot be fatal to their plea so long as the charge was read over and explained to them, whether jointly or separately, and they both understood the same and each of them individually entered his plea thereto. It would not matter, in my view, whether the court's record which described the event was written in direct or reported speech. See Udeh v. The State (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 609) 1."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Joint arraignment with composite recording of pleas is valid if each accused understood and pleaded individually. Preferable but not mandatory to record separately. The principle applies to criminal procedure. The rule prioritises substance over form in arraignment records. The court’s recording style (direct or reported speech) does not invalidate a proper arraignment. The key requirement is individual understanding and plea.
