In this landmark Nigerian criminal law decision, the West African Court of Appeal examined the proper procedure for punishing perjury in summary proceedings under Section 41(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 20. The case emphasises the constitutional importance of fair hearing, especially the requirement that an accused person must be informed of the substance of the allegation before a court may punish him summarily.
The matter came before KINGDON, C.J., with BUTLER LLOYD and FRANCIS, JJ., sitting together to determine whether the trial court correctly committed the appellant, Peter Otubu, for contempt on the allegation that he committed perjury while testifying as a witness.
Full Facts of the Case R v. Peter Otubu (1943) LAW-MADE-SIMPLE REPORT (L.M.S.R)
The appellant, Peter Tubu, was a witness during a criminal trial. At the end of that trial, the presiding Judge suddenly called him up and ordered him to show cause why he should not be committed to prison “for contempt of court,” adding that he was “satisfied he has been guilty of perjury.”
However:
The trial judge did not state the specific assignment of perjury.
The judge did not inform the appellant what exact statement made during his testimony was allegedly false.
The court record itself did not reveal the substance of the allegation, making it impossible to understand what perjury the appellant was accused of committing.
When asked to “show cause,” the appellant, unaware of the specific accusation, made only a plea for mercy (ad misericordiam).
The trial judge thereafter committed him to prison under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.This appeal challenged that committal.
Issue Before the Court West African Court Of Appeal
Whether a court, in summary proceedings for perjury under Section 41, may punish a witness without first informing him of the substance of the alleged perjury, and whether failure to do so renders the committal invalid.
Queen v. Eguabor (1962) Full Summary
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeal examined several authorities interpreting summary punishment for perjury:
1. Chang Hangkin v. Piggot ([1909] A.C. 312)
The Privy Council in this case held that summary punishment for perjury is only valid where the accused:
is given an opportunity to show cause, andis made aware of the pith of the charge against him.
The Privy Council rescinded the committal in that case because the accused persons were not given a real opportunity to defend themselves.
2. In Re Samuel Nunoo (3 W.A.C.A. 74)
This earlier decision of the West African Court of Appeal held that a conviction could stand where the accused knew the statement alleged to be false, even if the specific assignment of perjury was not expressly stated.
Thus, where the accused clearly understands the substance of the allegation, summary punishment may be upheld.
3. Deutsche L. Gesellschaft v. Attorney-General in Re Biney (1 N.L.R. 123)
This Nigerian Full Court decision laid down the clearest procedural guideline for courts
.The Court reproduced and endorsed this procedural standard as a dictum, which remains authoritative:
“The proper procedure in such cases is for the Court to call up the witness and address him to the following effect: ‘It appears to this Court that you have been guilty of perjury in that you have falsely sworn so and so’ (giving the substance of the allegations). ‘What have you got to say why you should not be fined or committed to prison as for a contempt of Court?’ If he does not answer or succeed in showing cause, the Court may then proceed to pass sentence.”
The Full Court further directed:
“The fact that the witness has been so addressed, and his answer, if any, should be recorded in the notes of proceedings.”
The present Court of Appeal adopted and confirmed this procedural standard.
Application of the Principles to This Case
The appellate court held:
The appellant was indeed called upon to show cause therefore condition (a) was satisfied.
But the appellant was not informed of the substance of the alleged perjury therefore condition (b) was not satisfied.
The Court could not even determine from the record what the supposed perjury consisted of. Without knowing the allegation, the appellant could not meaningfully defend himself.
Thus, the summary conviction was fundamentally defective.The court compared the situation with earlier authorities:
In Chang Hangkin, the conviction was quashed because the accused had no opportunity to show cause.
In Re Nunoo, the conviction was upheld because the accused knew the gist of the allegation.
Here, although the appellant was given an opportunity to speak, he did not know the substance of the charge. Therefore the conviction could not stand.
Final judgment
The appeal succeeded. The West African Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and rescinded the order of committal.
The appellant was discharged, and the summary conviction for perjury was set aside.
KEY RATIOS in R v otubu (1943) L.M.S
This case is a significant authority on summary punishment for perjury. It affirms that courts must strictly observe fairness:
A witness must be told the substance of the alleged perjury.
A witness must be given a meaningful opportunity to show cause.Failure to meet both conditions renders any committal invalid.
The judgment strengthens procedural safeguards against arbitrary punishment and ensures that summary powers are exercised in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice.
For more Case report & Summaries use the search website bar to check your cases
AFRICAN PRESS LTD V. THE QUEEN (1952) WACA 57–Sedition in Nigerian Law
R v Bangaza (1960) 5 FSC 1 Key Facts, Legal Principles & Nigerian Case Analysis
