MNK: The Other Side Of The Law           

By Willie Amadi

Going by the consistent decision of the Apex Court, it seems fairly settled that, in a trial carrying capital punishment or death penalty, a defendant MUST have legal representation.

Where he can not afford one of his choice, meaning lack of means, the Court MUST assign one to him through the Legal Aid Council. The Legal Act is clear on this.

Failure, refusal, and or neglect to do so is adjudged to amount to DENIAL of fair hearing.

Such a mistep in a trial, no matter how well conducted, will render the trial a NULLITY.

Going strictly by this established principle, it can therefore be argued that a defendant can not WAIVE his right to legal representation in a CAPITAL OFFENCE.

Hence, where the defendant waives his rights and or rejects legal representation in a case bothering on death penalty in contravention of the extant law, the right thing for the  presiding Judge to do, is to adjourn the matter indefinitely pending when the right procedure is adopted by the parties. Therefore, condoning the defendant’s breach of the provisions of the extant law amounts to emotional conspiracy and or a misdirection by the trial judge.

However, for every general rule, there is an exception. This case presents a very novel and tricky legal scenario which is also good for the development of our laws.

Now, Defendant had the means and retained counsel, including barrage of Senior Advocates throughout and up to the time the prosecution closed her case.

Ditto, Defendant, through his Counsel, made a NO CASE SUBMISSION.

With the Defendant still legally represented, the Court overruled the No Case Submission and asked the Defendant to enter his defence.

Defendant, on his own volition, discharged his counsel and elected to defend himself.

Defendant converted his counsel to “Legal Consultants” and wisely too, the Court put the names of the Legal  Consultants to the Defendant on record of the proceedings.

Throughout the defence stage of the trial and up to the day of judgment, the Legal Consultants were attending proceedings and assisting the Defendant as per the record of  proceedings.

This is the first time this gigsaw is happening in our criminal justice ecosystem Nigeria.

Can it therefore be argued that Defendant had no legal representation and or, that the learned trial Judge was in error and misdirected himself by not obeying the judgment of the Supreme Court on COMPULSORY legal representation in capital offences .

These are issues, and either way, new heads and principles of jurisprudence must emerge therefrom.

Finally, after interrogating both sides of the matter, we are now confronted with this novelty and the attendant burden of precarious balancing of the delicate nature inherent in this complex legal development by the appellate courts.

My feverent prayer is that MNK is set free at the appellate courts or given a conditional and passionate pardon as a political solution by our kind father, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.

Many thanks to Governor Alex Otti for following up through proactive engagement with Mr. President after visiting MNK at the Sokoto Maximum Correctional Prisons yesterday.

His Grace is sufficient.

Amadi LL.B, BL, LL.M, Ph.D Law (in view). Lawyer. Author . Environmentalist.