Excessive bail conditions amount to refusal -Court of Appeal

The appellant was arraigned along with eleven others at the lower court on a twenty-count charge alleging various offences which can be grouped as follows;  (i) Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and with intent to defraud (contrary to Section 8(a) of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and […]

The appellant was arraigned along with eleven others at the lower court on a twenty-count charge alleging various offences which can be grouped as follows;  
(i) Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and with intent to defraud (contrary to Section 8(a) of the Advanced Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the said Act (hereafter called “The Act”) .
(ii) Obtaining money by false pretences and with intent to defraud from the Pensions Account, office of the Head of Service of the Federation of Nigeria (Contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Act and punishable under section 1(3) of the Act.
 (iii) Conspiracy to conduct financial transactions involving various sums of moneys, proceeds of specified unlawful activities with intent to disguise the ownership of the proceeds of the specified unlawful activities (contrary to Section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Act and punishable under Section 7(2)(b)(i) of the Act).
(iv) Conduct of financial transactions involving various sums of moneys, proceeds of specified unlawful activities with the intent to disguise the ownership of the proceeds of specified unlawful activities contrary to Section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Act and punishable under section 7(2)(b)(i) of the Act. It must be mentioned that the appellant (along with the others) was first arraigned before Bello J. Ofabuja Division of the Federal High Court in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/28/11. He was granted bail in the sum of N10 million with one surety in the like sum.
The charge was withdrawn and struck out on 7th day of June, 2011. He (along with others) was arraigned afresh before Ademola, J. who granted him bail in the following terms;
i. Sum of N500,000,000.00 (five hundred million naira) with two (2) sureties each in the like sum.
ii. That the sureties must be resident within the jurisdiction of the court and must own landed properties anywhere within the Abuja Division of the Court and the properties must be worth the bail sum:
iii. That the title deeds of the properties must be verified by the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court before retaining copies.
iv. That the sureties must also swear to affidavit of means to be verified by the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court.
v. The appellant was to deposit his current international passport with the Deputy Chief Registrar of the court and should not travel abroad without obtaining approval from the court.
Unable to satisfy the conditions of bail, the appellant applied to the lower court by way of motion on notice filed on and dated 4th November, 2013, for a variation of the bail conditions. The court below as earlier stated, refused the application.
Aggrieved by the decision the appellant appealed to this court by way of a notice of appeal filed on 2nd December, 2013, containing four grounds of appeal.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, settled by S. I. Ameh, SAN, of counsel, two issues are formulated
viz; 1) Whether the bail conditions/terms prescribed by the Learned Trial Judge when he granted the appellant bail on the 12th day of July 2013 are not excessive and stringent 2) Whether the bail earlier granted by Bello J. to the Appellant on the 9th day of May 2011 and which terms were duly met by the Appellant does not subsist in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/28/11.
The respondent in reaction filed a brief of argument dated 14th February 2014 but filed on 17th February, 2014. In the brief settled by Chief Godwin O. Obla (SAN) of counsel, one issue is formulated for “Whether given the fact and circumstances of this case, appellant has made a showing that the court’s determination, viz: the trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially in denying appellant’s motion to vary the terms and conditions of bail imposed by the trial court.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, adopted by Okutapa, SAN, the following arguments are proffered.
Issue one:
Counsel submitted that the appeal touches on the constitutional right of the appellant guaranteed in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. After a summary of the facts leading to the appeal, counsel submitted that though bail pending trial is at the discretion of the court, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. He submitted further that after the grant of bail, the court is vested with jurisdiction to review or vary the, conditions of bail from stringent and onerous ones to less stringent ones as the justice of the case requires.
He urged the court to resolve the first issue in favour of the appellant.
Issue two:
Counsel submitted that where bail is granted and the matter is to begin de novo, it is unnecessary to apply for bail where there is no application for the revocation of the bail earlier granted to an accused person.
Counsel for the respondent, as earlier stated identified a sole issue for the court’s determination. Arguing his lone issue, counsel submitted that the grant or refusal of bail lies within the discretion of the trial judge and as such, the appellant must show that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously. He was of the view that the appellant could not demand variation of bail conditions as a matter of right. He added that the appellant would never be able to show that the learned trial Judge did not exercise his discretion in a judicial and judicious manner. He finally urged the court not to interfere with the decision of the learned trial Judge and to dismiss the appeal.
In view of the complaint of the appellant, it is my opinion that the only issue that arises for determination in this appeal is as follows; Whether or not the lower court exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing to vary the conditions of bail granted to the appellant.

To be continued