LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Arraignment – Substantial Compliance Where Charge Is Read, Explained and Plea Taken
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the record shows that the charge was read, interpreted, and explained to the accused in a language he understood, and the judge was satisfied before recording the plea, there is substantial compliance with arraignment requirements.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Okoro v. The State (1998) NLC-1351997(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras C–E.
"The court's proceeding of 26-5-86 clearly shows that the charge was read, interpreted and explained to the appellant in Yoruba, the language he understood. It was after the learned trial Judge was satisfied that he fully understood the charge that he recorded his plea of not guilty."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Substantial compliance with arraignment requirements suffices. The court need not recite a formulaic phrase. The record must show that the charge was explained and understood. The principle is based on the presumption of regularity. The accused bears the burden of showing non-compliance. The rule applies to all criminal trials. The court will examine the record as a whole. The failure to record satisfaction in a particular form is not fatal. The principle promotes substance over form.