LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Arraignment – Taking of Plea – Requirements for Valid Arraignment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The provisions of section 215 of Criminal Procedure Law and section 33(6)(a) and (e) of 1979 Constitution now section 36(a) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution has been the thorough subject of rigorous and judicial interpretations in both the Court of Appeal and this court here. It will suffice here to emphasise with clarity the requirements these two amalgamated sections have spelt out in the case of Edet Effiom v. The State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.373) 507, namely that— (a) the accused must be present in court unfettered unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary; (b) the charge must be read over to the accused in the language he understands; (c) The charge should be explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court; (d) In the course of the explanation, technical language must be avoided; (e) After requirements (a) - (d) above have been satisfied; the accused will then be called upon to plead instantly to the charge.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Durwode v. State (2000) NLC-222000(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"The provisions of section 215 of Criminal Procedure Law and section 33(6)(a) and (e) of 1979 Constitution now section 36(a) and (e) of the 1999 Constitution has been the thorough subject of rigorous and judicial interpretations in both the Court of Appeal and this court here. It will suffice here to emphasise with clarity the requirements these two amalgamated sections have spelt out in the case of Edet Effiom v. The State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.373) 507, namely that— (a) the accused must be present in court unfettered unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary; (b) the charge must be read over to the accused in the language he understands; (c) The charge should be explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court; (d) In the course of the explanation, technical language must be avoided; (e) After requirements (a) - (d) above have been satisfied; the accused will then be called upon to plead instantly to the charge."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Valid arraignment requires five procedural safeguards: (a) accused present and unfettered; (b) charge read in language accused understands; (c) charge explained to accused’s satisfaction; (d) explanation without technical language; (e) plea taken only after these conditions are met. These requirements ensure the accused understands the charge and can plead intelligently. Failure to comply renders the trial a nullity, as it violates constitutional fair hearing rights. The court must satisfy itself that the accused comprehends the charge before recording a plea.