In the Court of Appeal,Holden at Lagos,On Wednesday, December 15, 2010,Before their Lordships:Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, Justice, Court of Appeal;Hussein Mukhtar, Justice, Court of Appeal;Mohammed A. Danjuma, Justice, Court of Appeal;CA/L/864/2005BetweenBello Lafiaji (appellant/applicant)and Federal Republic of Nigeria (respondent).THE general rule relating the granting of bail after conviction has been well enunciated in the case of Ani v State where it was held that the granting of bail at this state is not a matter of course. It must be predicated on the reason of exceptional circumstance. So held the Court of Appeal holden at Lagos in a unanimous leading judgment by his Lordship: C.B. Ogunbiyi JCA, with her learned brothers, H. Mukhtar and M.A. Danjuma J.J. C.A, concurring while dismissing the appellants appeal. The facts are as contained in the body of the judgment. The parties were presented by Prof. T. Osipitan (SAN) with B. Yusuf and O. Badewole (Mrs.) for the appellant/applicant. Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) with A.O. Asha for the respondent. The motion on notice dated and filed September 20, 2010, is brought pursuant to Section 28 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap. C36 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Order 7 Rule 10910 Court of Appeal Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and it seeks for the following reliefs: An order extending the time within which the appellant/applicant shall apply to this honourable court for his bail pending the determination of his appeal; An order of the honourable court admitting the appellant/applicant to bail either unconditionally or upon reasonable condition which the honourable court may deem necessary to impose in its discretion, pending the determination of his appeal filed herein against the judgment of the lower court dated June 21, 2010. There are four grounds predicating this application which reproduction are as follows: The High Court of Lagos State in its judgment delivered in this suit on June 21, 2010, convicted and sentenced the appellant/applicant to various terms of imprisonment totalling and aggregate of 16 years as stated in the affidavit in support of this application, for the offences charged in this suit; The appellant/applicant being dissatisfied with the said decision the lower court has filed an appeal to this court seeking a reversal of the decision of the lower court; The appellant/applicant first applied to the lower court for bail pending the determination of his said appeal and the lower court refused the appellant/applicants application for bail pending his appeal; The appellant/applicant requires the leave of the honourable court to extend the time within which appellant/applicant will apply to the court for bail pending the determination of his appeal. In support of the motion is a 67-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Adebayo Adeyemo, a legal practitioner, being a counsel in the Chamber of Bayo Osipitan & Co., counsel to the appellant/applicant herein. Four exhibits marked JPI-JP4 were also attached to the affidavit in support of the motion. The learned senior counsel, Prof. T. Osipitan, in moving the application on behalf of the applicant, relied on all the paragraphs in support of the motion and also the exhibits attached. That this is a first judgment bail application; That the applicant was charged for corruption and sentenced to four years concurrent sentence;That the appeal is, therefore, against conviction and sentence, which the learned senior counsel argued, is excessive. Reliance was in particular made to paragraphs 8-24 of the affidavit wherein the learned senior counsel argued the applicant exhibited professional competence and, therefore, had taken the NDLED to higher heights during his years of selfless service; That throughout the period before the trial, the applicant was granted bail by EFCC and ICPC and he had never jumped bail. Citing in support of the case of Ojo v FRC 9 NWLR (pt. 984) page 103 at 120.That the applicant and others were tried under a repeal law, which rendered their trial illegal. Reference was made to pages 14-15 of the ruling in Chief Olabode George & Others v Federal Republic of Nigeria delivered by this court on December17, 2009, where it was held that the substantiality of a ground of appeal should be considered as relevant in consideration of post-conviction bail;That ex-facie the ground of appeal, there is error committed; also that the judgment was delivered after 90 days of the hearing of the appeal. As a further special circumstance, the learned senior counsel submitted as delay of the hearing of appeal. The case of Aiguo Reghian v The State (2004) 3 NWLR (pt 860) page 367 at 421-422 was cited in support. The senior counsel, therefore, urged that the application be granted as prayed. On behalf of one Usman Amali and pursuant to a prototype application also for bail, the learned senior counsel adopted the submission advanced supra and urged in the same vein that the application should be also be admitted to bail. Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN) represented the respondent and seriously opposed the applications by the two applicants Bello Lafiaji and Usman Amali. The senior counsel relied on all the paragraphs of their two counter-affidavits both filled on September 20, 2010 and containing seven paragraphs each respectively.On the submission relating the applicants good character, reference was made to paragraphs 4(b), (c), (e) of the counter-affidavits by both applicants. That there is no presumption of innocence after conviction, hence the arguments by the learned senior counsel on the applicants good character cannot therefore hold. That the reliance made on the case of Bode George and others supra cannot also assist the applicants, who have not satisfied the special and exceptional circumstance requirements to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of their applicants. Relevant in support is the case of Ani v State (2004) 7 NWLR (pt.872) p. 249 at 253-254. That the status of the applicants had not changed since the lower court refused them bail to warrant this court admit them to bail. Furthermore, that the records of appeal have now been entered and while Bello Lafiaji had since filed his brief, that of Usman Amali is yet to filled. The court should, therefore, refuse the application. Prof. Osipitan, senior counsel on point of law further cited the case of Madike v State (1992) 8 NWLR (pr257) p.85 at 95 and submitted that a person does not lose his character consideration in seeking a bail on account of being convicted. That the court should in the circumstance grant the bail as sought. It is pertinent to state at the onset that the applicants, Bello Lafiaji and Usman Amali in this application, were on June 21, 2010, convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and aggregate of 16 years and eight years respectively. The general rule relating the granting of bail conviction has been well enunciated in the case of Ani v State under reference supra where it was held that the granting of bail at this state is not a matter of course. It must be predicated on the reasons of exceptional circumstance. This is so restricted because after conviction, the applicant no longer comes within the principle of presumption of innocence. In other words, he is seen to have lost all forms of rights and privileges, which had hitherto accrued to him while standing trial, that is, before conviction and, therefore, was presumed to be innocent. The case of Ani v State followed the earlier principle as laid down in Jammal v the State (1996) 9 NWLR (pt 472) 352 at 366. In Rex v Theophilus Adenuga Tunwashe (1935) 2 WACA 236, it was held that: The principle upon which an applicant will be admitted to bail pending his appeal have been well settled. In order to adjudicate on the question of bail, it is useful to see if there is any prospect of the success of the appeal. It has frequently been laid down that the court will not grant an application unless there are exceptional and unusual reasons. (See Fawehinmi v The State (1990)1 NWLR (pt 127) 486 at (494). The said authority of Rex v Theophilus Adenuga Supra, is a locus classicus authority on the issue of bail after a conviction. In other words, the granting of bail to a convict must only be upon special and exceptional circumstance. The crux of reliance by the applicants as exceptional circumstances are the facts deposed to at paragraphs 8-24 of the affidavit in support. The learned senior counsel for the applicants also releid heavily on their good character exhibition, which he argued, should guide the court in its determination. In response, the reproduction of the respondents counter-affidavit is also significant at paragraph 4(b), (c), (d) and (e). 4(b) That as a general response to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the said affidavit, it is not in doubt that the appellant/applicant started out well before and during his early days at the NDLEA, but greed however, got the better of him before he left the NDLEA and this eventually culminated to his conviction by the lower court. From the affidavit evidence before the court especially at paragraph 4© of Bell Lafiajis counter-affidavit supra, the status of the applicant in the eye of the law as it stands today, is of bad reputation. The same as goes to Usman Amali wherein by the respondents counter-affidavit at paragraph 49d), the applicant cannot be arrogated a status of a good conduct. The reliance made by the applicants senior counsel on the case of Ojo v FRN supra dose not, therefore, in the circumstance aid their case. On the totality of the application before us, therefore, I am of the view that it is bereft of any special or exceptional circumstance and consequent upon which there can be no exercise of discretion in favour thereof. The application is devoid of any merit and it is hereby dismissed. I, however, make an order that counsel should file and exchange their respective briefs of arguments to ensure the accelerated hearing of the appeal. The application for bail by the applicants, Bello Lafiaji and Usman Amali, is refused and accordingly dismissed.
Click here to read full news..
