Valid Arraignment

Arraignment is a criminal proceeding at which the defendant is officially called before a court of competent jurisdiction, informed of the offence charged in the complaint, information, indictment or other charging document and asked to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty or as otherwise permitted by law. For there to be a valid arraignment, certain mandatory requirements must be complied with, and these are:
The accused must be placed before the court unfettered unless the trial court shall see cause to the contrary.
The charge or information shall be over and explained in the language he understands to the satisfaction of the court by the court registrar or clerk.
The accused shall then be called upon to plead instantly therewith unless there is a valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service, when the accused is entitled by the service of a copy of the information and the court is satisfied that he has infact not been duly served.
In recent happenings in our country, certain arraignments have been queried for want of compliance to the requirements mentioned. The likes of such is the police arraignment of Senator Dino Melaye and Chief Olisa Metuh. Senator Dino Malaye was arraigned on a stretcher before an Abuja Magistrate Court and Kogi State High Court. But can that be classified to be valid arraignment? Is it not in violation of his fundamental human right to self dignity? Though some might argue that the police have statutory right to charge accused persons to court, stating that the essence of arraignment is for the court to determine the guilt of a person so charged after the prosecution and defence must have made their respective cases.
For some other lawyers, it is wrong, inhuman and degrading to arraign an accused in a stretcher. According to Chief Mike Ozikhome, SAN, it contravenes Sections 32, 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution and also Section 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. Note that though the arraignment is wrongly done, it does not vitiate the arraignment. In Ogunya v. the state (1999)5 NWIR (Pt604) 518 at 567, the court stated that it is the arraignment of the law that necessary steps to a valid arraignment are complied with. The court further stated that such requirement must co-exist and non -compliance will warrant an order of a re-trial as the trial will be vitiated and rendered a nullity.

Nkeeh Bright Ewere