CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ā Arraignment ā Reading and Explaining Charge ā Where Accused Understands English, Omission to Record Satisfaction Not Fatal
Principle Statement
Where the accused understands the language of the court ā English, it becomes unnecessary to record that fact. It is however, good practice to ask the accused the question whether he understood the charge so read and explained and to record the answer. But the omission to do so would not constitute non-compliance with the constitutional and procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Kastina-Alu, JSC, in Dibie v. State (2007) NLC-123-103-2005(SC) at p. 6; Paras DāE.
"Where the accused understands the language of the court ā English, it becomes unnecessary to record that fact. It is however, good practice to ask the accused the question whether he understood the charge so read and explained and to record the answer. But the omission to do so would not constitute non-compliance with the constitutional and procedural requirements."
Explanation / Scope
The constitutional requirement is that the charge be read and explained to the accused in the language he understands. If the accused understands English, the record of that understanding is not mandatory, though it is advisable. An omission to formally record the accused’s understanding does not vitiate the arraignment. The court will look at the entire record, such as the accused’s testimony in English, to infer understanding.
