By E. Monjok Agom
Section 21 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, criminalises various forms of assistance, encouragement, or facilitation of terrorist activities. However, when bringing charges under this section, it is essential to ensure that the particulars of the charge align with specific acts outlined in subsections (a), (b), or (c). It is clearly a bad charging practice to state the offence generally as it leads to vagueness.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIFICITY IN CHARGING
In Nigerian law, the principle of specificity in charging is well-established. The court in Adeyemi v. State (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1635) 422, emphasized the need for precision in framing charges, stating that “a charge must be specific, clear, and unambiguous to enable the accused person to know what he is being charged with.”
ALIGNING PARTICULARS WITH SPECIFIC ACTS
When charging under Section 21, the particulars of the charge must correspond with specific acts outlined in subsections (a), (b), or (c). For instance:
- If the accused is alleged to have provided assistance to a terrorist organization, the charge should specifically state that the accused “aided” the organization, as per subsection (a).
- If the accused is alleged to have attempted to commit an act as an accessory, the charge should specifically state that the accused “attempted to commit an act as an accessory,” as per subsection (b).
- If the accused is alleged to have incited others to commit a terrorist act, the charge should specifically state that the accused “incited” others, as per subsection (c).
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-SPECIFIC CHARGING
Failure to align the particulars of the charge with specific acts under Section 21 may result in the charge being declared invalid or defective. In Ibori v. FRN(2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1396) 1, the court held that a defective charge can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, when charging under Section 21 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, it is crucial to ensure that the particulars of the charge align with specific acts outlined in subsections (a), (b), or (c). A general charge of violating Section 21 without specificity may not be sufficient, and may lead to the charge being declared invalid or defective. By adhering to the principle of specificity in charging, prosecutors can ensure that justice is served, and that those who facilitate or promote terrorist activities are held accountable.
E. Monjok Agom
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel for your news updates
