LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fair Hearing — Right to Counsel — Assignment of Counsel Does Not Violate Right to Counsel of Choice Where Accused Does Not Object
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The appellant, knowing fully well that he was being accused of the offence of murder, which is serious, the burden lay on him to arrange for his defence. If he failed to do so, he cannot turn round late in the day to pick holes in the correct application of constitutional or procedural provisions governing the assignment of counsel.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Nwambe v. The State (1995) NLC-1091994(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras. E–A.
"The appellant knowing fully well that he was being accused of the offence of murder, which offence is serious, the burden lay on him to arrange for his defence and if he failed to do so, cannot now turn round, late in the day, to pick holes in the correct application of Constitutional or procedural provisions governing such an assignment of counsel."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Assignment of counsel by the court does not violate the right to counsel of choice if the accused did not object or arrange for his own counsel. The accused cannot complain after conviction. The principle applies to capital cases. The court has a duty to assign counsel for indigent accused. The rule protects the accused’s right to a defence. The accused may reject assigned counsel and arrange for his own. The court will not allow an accused to use the assignment as a ground for appeal if he did not object.
