The recent decision of the Gombe State High Court in FRN v. Muhammad Sulaiman Kumo, where the court reportedly ordered the convicted defendant to pay prosecution costs to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), raises troubling constitutional and jurisprudential questions. Whatever the moral outrage against corruption may be, criminal justice must still operate within the strict boundaries of law. Courts are not permitted to improvise penalties outside statutory authorization.
Muhammad Sulaiman Kumo, a former Chief Magistrate, was convicted on bribery-related charges after reportedly changing his plea from not guilty to guilty during trial. Following conviction, the prosecution urged the court to award costs on the basis that the EFCC had already expended substantial time and resources gathering evidence due to the earlier plea of not guilty. The application was granted, with payment reportedly directed into an EFCC account domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria.
With respect, that decision appears to have been reached per incuriam (in error).
The starting point is elementary but fundamental: criminal prosecution is a constitutional obligation of the State, not a commercial venture. The Nigerian criminal justice framework does not contemplate prosecution as a revenue-generating exercise. From the Constitution to the Administration of Criminal Justice laws across the federation, the burden of investigating and prosecuting offences rests squarely on the State as part of its sovereign responsibility to maintain law and order.
Neither the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria nor the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (and various State adaptations) creates a regime where an accused person may be penalized for exercising the constitutional right to plead not guilty. That right is inseparable from the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution. Once courts begin to impose financial consequences merely because an accused person initially demanded proof of allegations, the justice system enters dangerous territory.
A defendant cannot be punished for insisting that the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To do so indirectly criminalizes the exercise of constitutional rights.
More importantly, costs in criminal proceedings have traditionally occupied a very narrow space under Nigerian law. While courts may order compensation to victims, restitution of proceeds of crime, forfeiture of illicit assets, or statutory fines expressly prescribed by law, “cost of prosecution” payable to the prosecuting agency stands on a different footing entirely. Such an order requires clear legislative backing. Courts derive jurisdiction from statute, not sentiment.
The implications of this precedent are far-reaching. If sustained, prosecuting agencies may begin to routinely seek reimbursement for investigative and prosecutorial expenses whenever an accused contests charges before eventually pleading guilty or being convicted. That would fundamentally distort the character of criminal justice administration in Nigeria. It could also exert improper pressure on defendants to abandon legitimate defences out of fear of punitive financial consequences.
The fight against corruption is important. But fidelity to the rule of law is even more important. Anti-corruption efforts lose moral authority once courts begin to endorse penalties unknown to law. Criminal justice must remain anchored to legality, not prosecutorial convenience or public emotion.
As Nigeria continues to strengthen its anti-corruption framework, courts must remain vigilant in upholding constitutional principles. The fight against corruption is too important to be tainted by procedural missteps. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done: untainted by financial considerations that the law does not recognize.
The State has a duty to prosecute crime. The citizen has a right to defend himself. Neither obligation should attract punishment.
Mr Abdulkadir, Esq is a legal consultant and can be reached via [email protected]
