Drafting Charges

A charge is a statement of offence in which a person is accused of before a court of law. There are rules that regulate the drafting of charges, one of such rule, is the rule against ambiguity.
The rule against ambiguity demands that all the particulars required by law to be stated in a charge must be so stated. A charge that is certain and unambiguous must state the following;
1. The offence for which the accused person is charged.
2. The written law and the section of the written law against which the offence is said to have been committed.
3. Particulars of the date and place the offence was allegedly committed.
4. The person against whom or thing, if any, in respect of which the offence was committed.
5. The name of the accused person.
In Okeke & Anor V. Inspector – General of Police (1965) All N.L.R P.81, the Appellant was charged and convicted of two offences. In the judgement, the trial magistrate stated that the accused person was charged under, “some sections of the Criminal Acts.” On appeal, it was contended that this contravened the provision of Section 151 (3) of the C.P.A, which provides that:
“The written law and section of the written law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be set out in the charge”.
The court upheld the submission and declared the trial null and void. In Attorney-General of the Federation V. Isong (1986) I Q.L.R.N. P.75, the accused person was charged with two offences; unlawful possession of arms contrary to Sections 3 of the Firearms Acts 1958 as amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1966 and unlawful possession of ammunitions contrary to Section 9 of the Firearms Act 1966.
In course of the trial, it was discovered that the two sections of the law only defined the offences charged but did not state the penalty for the offences. Therefore, the charges as framed were held to be defective since it failed to state the penalty sections of the Firearms Act.
Note that no omissions or errors in a charge shall be regarded as material unless the accused person was in fact misled by such error or omission. The courts have reframed from nullifying charges for mere technical errors or omissions.
In Ogbomor V. The State (1985) 2.S.C. p.289, the accused person was charged and convicted for armed robbery contrary to Robbery and Firearms Act 1970. He appealed on the ground that although there was a law known as the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1970, there was no law known as Robbery and Firearms Act 1970 as was stated on the face of the charge. The Supreme Court held; that the mere mis-description of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provision) Act 1970 by the omission of “(special provision)” was minor and technical, also that the law and the accused person know the offences of armed robbery and that the accused person knew what he was being tried for.
The effect of an ambiguous charge will always depend on whether the ambiguity was sufficient to mislead the accused person, to the extent that he did not know the offence for which he was being tried.
Nkechi Bright – Ewere