LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Arraignment – Non-Recording of Language – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The provision of the law should not be stretched to a point of absurdity by reading into it that the Judge must record that the charge was explained to the accused to his satisfaction before taking his plea. It will be impeaching the integrity of the Judge to do that as no Judge will take the plea of an accused if he is not satisfied that the charge was read and explained to the accused to his satisfaction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Okoro v. State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt.584) 181, cited with approval in Durwode v. State (2000) NLC-222000(SC) at p. 11; Paras A–B.
"The provision of the law should not be stretched to a point of absurdity by reading into it that the Judge must record that the charge was explained to the accused to his satisfaction before taking his plea. It will be impeaching the integrity of the Judge to do that as no Judge will take the plea of an accused if he is not satisfied that the charge was read and explained to the accused to his satisfaction."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
While valid arraignment is essential, the law does not require the trial judge to expressly record that the charge was explained to the accused’s satisfaction. The judge’s satisfaction is implied from the act of taking the plea. Requiring explicit recording would elevate form over substance and unjustifiably impeach judicial integrity. The presumption is that a judge properly performs judicial functions. Unless the record shows otherwise, the arraignment is presumed valid. This prevents technicalities from nullifying trials where substantive compliance occurred.