INTRODUCTION

Nigeria is facing multi-dimensional attacks from various terror groups across the Sahel region, ranging from banditry, armed robbery, cattle rustling, land grabbing, kidnapping to brute terrorism. There are different versions of the philosophy underpinning this global menace, from supposed economic imbalances to political alliances, mines and minerals, territorial conquests and even religion. The important thing is for the government and the people to rise up to the occasion to provide adequate safety and protection for all. It bears repeating, even for a trillion times now and always, that the ultimate purpose of government is the security and welfare of the people. In all cases, the resort to law by the government and all state and non-state actors as one of the major sources of combating and addressing this malaise must be supported and commended by all. In many ways, we are all affected by the multiplication of these terror groups across different parts of the nation, necessitating urgent and effective action plans and modalities for prompt containment, mass resistance and ultimate dismantling. This is why the case of FRN v Jokolo has featured in this space, given the ingenious manner in which the head of one of the avenues of combating terrorism, deployed his administrative and judicial power to aid effective prosecution. The investigating and prosecuting agencies involved are equally commended for their commitment and diligence.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case, as reported in FRN v Jokolo (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt.2054) 351 are that the respondent was the 3rd defendant with seven other defendants who were initially charged and arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, on 28-count charge of money laundering and conspiracy contrary to sections 14(1)(a), 15(1), (3) and 17(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004. Upon application by the prosecuting agency, the case was subsequently transferred to the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for security reasons. At the trial, the prosecution in proof of the charge preferred against the respondent called 17 witnesses and tendered a bundle of documents which were admitted as exhibits, and closed its case. The respondent and other defendants elected to make a no-case submission.

THE DECISION OF THE COURTS

The trial court in its ruling overruled the respondent’s no-case submission. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed the appeal on the grounds that the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court which dismissed the said appeal. In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions sections 93(2), 98(1) and 387 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015; Section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, and Order 17, Rules 1-5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Power of Chief Judge of a High Court to Transfer a Criminal Case from One Court to Another and When Exercisable:

By virtue of section 98(1) of the Administration of Criminal Act, 2015, the Chief Judge of a High Court may, where it appears to him that the transfer of a case will promote the ends of justice or will be in the interest of the public peace, transfer any case from one court to another. This power is a crucial tool to foster efficient administration of justice, especially in sensitive cases where security concerns, potential bias, or public unrest might compromise a fair trial or public order in the original jurisdiction. To underscore the importance of security in a criminal trial, section 93(2) of the Act also provides that a criminal charge shall be filed and tried in the division where the alleged offence was committed unless it can be shown that it is convenient to do otherwise for security reasons. The phrase “interests of the public peace” is particularly relevant to situations involving insecurity. In circumstances where the prevailing security situation in a particular territorial jurisdiction might compromise the safety of parties, witnesses, judicial officers, or the general public, or might otherwise impede the fair and impartial conduct of a trial, the Chief Judge can invoke the power. The “ends of justice” also encompasses the need to ensure that trials are conducted in an environment free from intimidation and undue influence, which insecurity can engender. The limitation under section 98(2) of the Act, that the power shall not be exercised where the prosecution has called witness, only implies that such transfers are generally intended for earlier stages of proceedings as it was in the instant case.

The Power of Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to Transfer Criminal Case from One Court to Another:

The power conferred on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another, particularly by reason of insecurity, is a critical aspect of judicial administration aimed at ensuring justice, public peace, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. The power is primarily derived from statutory provisions and is supported by judicial pronouncements.

The Duty on Chief Judge Before Transferring a Case Based on Petition Under Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015:

By virtue of section 98(3) and of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, before a Chief Judge can exercise his powers to transfer a case to another judicial division, the application or petition to transfer shall be investigated within one week by not more than 3 reputable legal practitioners, who shall submit their report within 2 weeks of their appointment. In this case, the respondent’s argument that the Chief Judge could not have complied with the formal requirement within 3 days was speculative. The respondent failed to prove that the Chief Judge did not comply with the procedure as prescribed by the statute before the matter was transferred to Abuja.

The Territorial Jurisdiction of Federal High Court vis-à-vis High Courts of a State and Federal Capital Territory:

By virtue of Section 19 of the Federal High Court Act the court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation, and for that purpose the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the Chief Judge into such number of Judicial Divisions (not less than four) as he may, from time to time, specify and he may designate any such Judicial Division or part thereof by such name as he may think fit. Thus, the Federal High Court enjoys nationwide jurisdiction, while a State High Court is confined to the territory of the State and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory is confined to Federal Capital Territory.

The Limit to Application of Principle of Territorial Jurisdiction:

The principle of territorial jurisdiction dictates that an offence shall be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed. This is enshrined in section 45(a) of the Federal High Court Act, which states that an offence shall be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed. This principle ensures that the court has the geographical competence to hear and determine the matter. However, this general rule is subject to the power of transfer statutorily conferred on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. In the instant case, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court acted under section 98 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and transferred the case from Kano to Abuja. In that situation, raising an issue of territorial jurisdiction is sterile and futile.

The Power of Chief Judge of Federal High Court to Assign or Transfer Cases Within the Jurisdiction of the Court:

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court is bestowed with the administrative powers to assign cases to a court, withdraw a case from a particular court, and transfer cases anywhere within the jurisdiction, that is, within the entire Federation to promote the ends of justice. This power is exclusive and cannot be shared with the Chief Judge.

The Effect of Transfer of Case from One Jurisdiction to Another:

When a Chief Judge exercises the power to transfer a criminal case from one jurisdiction to another for security reasons under section 98(1) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, it is generally not a requirement that the element of the offence charged must have been committed in the new jurisdiction to which the case is transferred. The power of transfer under section 98(1) of the Act is an administrative and judicial prerogative designed to ensure the ends of justice and public peace which takes precedence over the territorial jurisdiction rule for the specific purpose of the transfer.

The Effect of Transfer of Criminal Cases from One Court to Another on Jurisdiction of Receiving Court:

Once a case is validly transferred by the Chief Judge, the receiving court by virtue of section 387 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 acquires the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, irrespective of whether the locus criminis falls within its geographical area. The jurisdiction of the new court is derived from the order of the Chief Judge, not from the original territory where the offence was allegedly committed. In the instant case, the question of whether any part of the offences charged was committed in Abuja was redundant and inessential.

The Principle Guiding Criminal Appeals:

The fundamental principle guiding criminal appeals is that an appeal is a challenge by an aggrieved party against a decision of a lower court that directly affects him. The notice of appeal serves to formally notify the appellate court and the respondent, typically the State or, as in the instant case at the lower court, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the appellant’s intention to appeal and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is based, pertaining to his own conviction or sentence.

Update news