HARUNA & ORS. v. THE STATE (1972) SC 11/1972 – Supreme Court of Nigeria
Coram: Elias, C.J.N., Udoma, J.S.C., and Fatai-Williams, J.S.C.Date: 8th September, 1972
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in Haruna & Ors. v. The State (1972), delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the scope of jurisdiction in cases involving criminal conspiracy under the Penal Code. This case dealt with the critical question of whether an agreement to commit a crime made in one state (Lagos) but executed in another (North-Western State) could confer jurisdiction on the latter to try all the accused persons.
The Court’s ruling firmly established that once an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is carried out within a state, the courts in that state have jurisdiction to try the offenders, even if the original agreement was reached elsewhere.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE HARUNA V STATE 1972
The appellants — Olusegun Haruna and others — were tried and convicted by the High Court of the North-Western State sitting at Sokoto. They faced twenty counts under the Penal Code, including:
.Criminal Conspiracy under Section 97(1);
.Using Forged Documents under Section 366;
.Cheating under Section 325; and
.Wearing Army Uniform under Section 133 of the Penal Code.
The accused persons had devised a fraudulent scheme by tendering forged payment vouchers at a bank in Bida, North-Western State, to collect a total sum of £13,722. This money was purportedly meant for the supply of food to the Nigerian Armed Forces.
To make their fraudulent activities believable, they dressed in Nigerian Army uniforms, thereby impersonating military officers.
The first accused, Olusegun Haruna, was convicted on multiple counts of using forged documents and cheating.The second accused, Muhammadu Yunusa Doko, and the fourth accused, Paul Omolo, were convicted for wearing army uniforms unlawfully.The third accused, Ibrahim Mohammed, was convicted for using forged documents and cheating.
All the appellants jointly appealed to the Supreme Court against their convictions, arguing primarily that the High Court of the North-Western State lacked jurisdiction to try them since the agreement to commit the crimes was reached in Lagos.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION HARUNA V STATE 1972
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the High Court of the North-Western State had jurisdiction to try the appellants for an offence planned and agreed upon in Lagos but executed in Bida, North-Western State.
JUDGMENT AND REASONING OF THE COURT HARUNA V STATE 1972
Fatai-Williams, J.S.C.,delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the appellants. His Lordship reasoned that the offence of criminal conspiracy under the Penal Code differs from conspiracy at common law.
While under common law, the offence is complete once an agreement to commit a crime is reached, the Penal Code extends its jurisdictional scope to include where the agreement is executed or any act is done in furtherance of that conspiracy
Thus, once one of the accused submitted the first forged payment voucher in Bida and received a cheque in return, the conspiracy became operative within the North-Western State. Consequently, the High Court sitting in Sokoto had jurisdiction to try all the accused persons.
Dictum:“While the agreement reached by the accused persons in Lagos to obtain payment in Bida, in the North-Western State, for fictitious purchases by means of forged vouchers may well constitute the offence of conspiracy under the common law in Lagos, it also constitutes, by virtue of section 96(2) of the Penal Code in force in the North-Western State, the offence of criminal conspiracy in Bida as soon as one of the accused submitted the first payment voucher in Bida and received a cheque in payment of the amount stated therein.”
The Court further interpreted Section 221(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Section 96(2) of the Penal Code, holding that both provisions were designed to cover situations where a crime involved acts or elements committed across different locations but forming one continuous transaction.
Dictum:“In order to constitute one transaction within the meaning of Section 221(d), all the acts in question should from the very beginning be either in contemplation or should form component parts of a whole.”
Therefore, since all the acts the agreement in Lagos, the submission of forged vouchers, and the collection of money in Bida were interconnected and formed a single scheme, the Sokoto High Court was right to exercise jurisdiction over the entire offence.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming that:
Jurisdiction:The High Court of the North-Western State had proper jurisdiction to try the accused persons since the conspiracy materialized and was executed in Bida, within its territorial reach.
Validity of Convictions:The convictions and sentences imposed by the Sokoto High Court on all counts were upheld.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES RATIO DECIDENDI ESTABLISHED IN HARUNA V STATE 1972
1.Jurisdiction in Criminal Conspiracy:
Where a criminal conspiracy is conceived in one jurisdiction but executed or partly executed in another, the court in the latter jurisdiction has competence to try the offenders.
2.Continuing Nature of Conspiracy:
The offence of conspiracy under the Penal Code is not complete merely upon agreement; it continues until an act in furtherance of the agreement is performed.
3.Application of Section 221(d) CPC and Section 96(2) Penal Code:
These provisions enable the trial of related offences forming part of the same transaction in one jurisdiction, ensuring the effective administration of criminal justice.
YOU CAN CHECK WEBSITE CATEGORIES FOR MORE CASE SUMMARISES LIKE THIS
Criminal Law: Burglary and Housebreaking – Meaning and Differences Under Nigerian Law
Ingredients or Elements of the Offence of Stealing in Nigeria.