CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ā Arraignment ā Recording of Plea ā Failure to Record That Charge Was Explained to Satisfaction of Court Not Fatal
Principle Statement
It is good practice to record specifically that a charge was read and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court and that he understood before pleading. However, recording that the charge was read and explained in the language he understood before pleading suffices. Failure to add "to the satisfaction of the court" does not vitiate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Amala v. State (2004) NLC-2312002(SC) at pp. 23ā24; Paras EāA.
"Without doubt, it is good practice for trial courts to record specifically that a charge was read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court and that he understood the same before pleading thereto. Where, however, the trial court has recorded that a charge was read over and explained to the accused person in the language he understood before he pleaded thereto, failure to add that this was done to its satisfaction cannot vitiate the proceedings or render the plea defective and null and void. See Ogunye v. The State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 604) 548."
Explanation / Scope
Absence of express words “to the satisfaction of the court” does not invalidate a proper arraignment. Recording that the charge was read and explained in a language understood is sufficient. The principle applies to criminal procedure. The rule avoids technical nullification for omission of non-statutory phrases. Substantial compliance with section 215 CPA is enough. The purpose of ensuring understanding is what matters, not precise wording.
