The case of The Queen v. Imadebhor Eguabor (1962) is a landmark decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria that addressed two vital issues in criminal justice:
1. Whether an accused person, tried in a language he does not understand, can be said to have received a fair trial in the absence of an interpreter.
2. Whether it is proper for counsel to disclose his client’s instructions to the court.
This very case not only shaped the interpretation of constitutional fair trial rights in Nigeria but also laid down important standards on the ethical duties of counsel.
Facts Summary <div><div> of Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961)1 ALL NLR 400
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Imadebhor Eguabor, was charged with murder before the Western Region High Court. The trial proceedings were conducted in English, a language the appellant did not understand. The record of proceedings did not indicate whether interpretation was provided for him.
During trial, the prosecution tendered a statement allegedly made by the appellant in Ishan language, along with an English translation. The appellant objected, contending that the translation was inaccurate. However, his counsel allowed the statement to be admitted and disclosed to the court that his client had originally instructed him that he was “tapping palm wine” on the day in question.
The High Court convicted the appellant of murder. Dissatisfied, he appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federal Supreme Court considered two key issues:
1. Fair hearing and the right to interpretation – Whether failure to provide an interpreter where the accused does not understand the language of the trial vitiates the proceedings.
2. Professional duty of counsel – Whether it was proper for defence counsel to disclose his client’s instructions to the court.
On The Law on Fair Hearing and Interpreter Rights
The appellant argued that his trial was a mistrial because he could not understand the proceedings, which violated both statutory provisions and the Constitution.
Section 210, Criminal Procedure Act
The court considered Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides:
“Every accused person shall, subject to the provisions of section 100 (which deals with trials for simple offences) and to subsection (2) of section 223 (which deals with cases where the accused is of unsound mind), be present in court during the whole of his trial unless he misconducts himself in court causing his removal, or unless he is so ill that he cannot be present, or unless the court considers otherwise as to render their continuance in his presence impracticable.”
Justice Brett observed that:
“…it is idle to insist on the presence of the accused unless he understands what is going on.”
Section 21(5), Constitution of the Federation (1960)
The appellant further relied on Section 21(5) of the 1960 Constitution,which guarantees the rights of persons charged with criminal offences. It provides:
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled –(a) to be informed promptly in a language that he understands and in detail, of the nature of the offence,(b) to be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence,(c) to defend himself in person or by legal practitioners of his own choice,(d) to examine in person or by his legal practitioners the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the court on the same conditions as those applying to witnesses called by the prosecution, and(e) to have without payment the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the trial of the offence.”
The defence contended that this provision imposed a duty on the court to ensure that the whole proceedings must be interpreted to an accused in every case where he does not understand the trial language.
“When any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and the accused is present in court, it shall be interpreted in a language understood by him.”
Although the Criminal Procedure Act (applicable outside the North) had no equivalent provision, the Federal Supreme Court held that it was the accepted practice in Nigerian courts that evidence be interpreted for an accused who does not understand the trial language.
Justice Brett stressed:
“…the Judge or Magistrate should ask the accused and tell him what the witness is saying. We consider that it should be accepted practice (if it already is), and that it should be followed also where the accused is represented by counsel, unless the accused personally expresses a wish to dispense with the translation and the presiding Judge or Magistrate considers that the interest of justice will not be prejudiced by such a course.”
The court cited R. v. Lee Kun (1916) 1 K.B. 337 where the English Court of Criminal Appeal had expressed similar views on interpreter rights, treating it as a matter of practice but subject to whether any miscarriage of justice had occurred.
On issues of The Duty of Counsel and Misconduct in Court
The Federal Supreme Court condemned the conduct of the appellant’s counsel who disclosed his client’s instructions to the court and failed to challenge the admissibility of the disputed statement.
Justice Brett, F.J., declared:
“Counsel’s statement as to the original instructions he had received was one which he ought not to have made… whether he takes this extreme course or not he is at all times under an obligation not to disclose the instructions he has received except with the express or implied consent of his client or former client.”
The court further held that by failing to cross-examine the police officer on the statement and by making the disclosure, counsel had abandoned his duty:
“…by his unauthorised disclosure and his abstention from cross-examination he implied that he himself doubted if the evidence to be given by his client was to be relied on, and it was a miscarriage of justice, as understood in this country, that he should have continued to represent the appellant without the appellant’s being aware that the counsel to whom he looked to present his case had, from his point of view, gone over to the enemy.”
Final Decision of the Court Queen v. Eguabor (1962)
The Federal Supreme Court held that justice had not been seen to be done. Although there was strong evidence against the appellant, the combined effect of:The absence of clarity on whether interpretation was provided, andThe improper disclosure of client instructions by counsel… amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the court:Quashed the conviction, andOrdered a retrial before another Judge of the Western Region High Court.
Significance of the Case Queen v. Eguabor (1962)
The Queen v. Eguabor established critical principles in Nigerian criminal law and procedure, some of this are highlighted as follows:
1. Right to Interpretation:An accused must be able to understand proceedings, and the duty to ensure this lies with the trial judge. The right cannot be waived except personally by the accused.
2. Professional Ethics of Counsel:Counsel must not disclose client instructions without consent, and must actively and faithfully defend the client’s case.
3. Fair Hearing under the Constitution:Fair trial rights are not satisfied by mere physical presence; they require full comprehension of the proceedings.
This case remains a guiding precedent on interpreter rights and the ethical duties of legal practitioners in Nigeria.
Hope The case summary was helpful, Don’t forget to share with others.
Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962)(Full summary)
R v Bangaza (1960) 5 FSC 1 Key Facts, Legal Principles & Nigerian Case Analysis
Doctrine of Necessity: Meaning, Key Cases, and Application in Constitutional Law
