LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Arraignment — Validity of Plea — Literate Accused Person Understanding English Language
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the accused is literate in English and the proceedings are conducted in English, the requirement that the charge be explained to him in a language he understands becomes unnecessary unless it is clear that he does not understand English. The test is subjective, not objective.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Okeke v. State (2003) NLC-2592000(SC) at pp. 47–48; Paras A–C.
"Where the accused person is literate in English language and the proceedings of the trial court were conducted in the English language, the requirement that the charge be explained to him in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the court becomes unnecessary. The failure to record that the charge was explained to the accused does not render the arraignment invalid. What the law enjoins a trial court to do is to satisfy itself that the accused on the charge being read over and explained to him fully understands the nature thereof before he enters his plea thereto, but the test with regard to this requirement is subjective and not objective."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A literate English-speaking accused may not require formal explanation of the charge. The trial judge’s subjective satisfaction is sufficient. The principle applies to criminal procedure. The record need not explicitly show explanation. The rule promotes judicial efficiency. The accused must raise any language difficulty. The principle is well-established.