Analysis and Identification of Suspected Substance in the Trial of Drug Offences in Nigeria: A Review of Oyem v FRN

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
Moses Ejiro Ediru
{"title":"Analysis and Identification of Suspected Substance in the Trial of Drug Offences in Nigeria: A Review of Oyem v FRN","authors":"Moses Ejiro Ediru","doi":"10.47672/ajl.1151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of the review was to show that the affirmation of the appellant’s conviction in the case of Oyem v FRN by the Nigerian apex court was erroneous. To achieve the purpose, it is expedient to unravel the various errors committed by the apex court as a result of its failure to adhere to the law and to observe the peculiarities in the procedure for the trial of drug offences. \nMethodology: This work adopts the doctrinal method of research which involves the use of primary and secondary sources of law. The primary sources used in this work were legislation (Acts of the National Assembly), Case laws and Decrees while the secondary sources were books and article. The review of Oyem’s case in substance reveals that the apex court affirmed the conviction of the appellant on the assumption that, (1) the result of the preliminary (color) test conducted by the exhibit keeper at the NDLEA Command, using UN Narcotic Identification Testing Kit was the legal proof of the suspected substance as Indian hemp, instead of a chemist’s report on the mandatory confirmatory laboratory test by an analyst and, (2) the appellant’s confessional statement and guilty plea served as alternative proof that the suspected substance was Indian hemp even when the trial court did not carry out the test of veracity on the confessional statement. \nFindings: The two (2) assumptions by the apex court are the main findings in this work. Furthermore, even when the appellant was charged, tried and convicted for an offence constituted by expert evidence, no expert gave evidence at the trial, at least not on record. This work is of the view that extra-judicial confession made prior to analysis of a suspected substance cannot serve as proof of the nature of the substance, that is, Indian hemp. Moreover, the Nigerian Evidence Law having provided for the method for the analysis and identification of suspected substance in the trial of drug offences no other method can be used under the law. \n","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47672/ajl.1151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the review was to show that the affirmation of the appellant’s conviction in the case of Oyem v FRN by the Nigerian apex court was erroneous. To achieve the purpose, it is expedient to unravel the various errors committed by the apex court as a result of its failure to adhere to the law and to observe the peculiarities in the procedure for the trial of drug offences. Methodology: This work adopts the doctrinal method of research which involves the use of primary and secondary sources of law. The primary sources used in this work were legislation (Acts of the National Assembly), Case laws and Decrees while the secondary sources were books and article. The review of Oyem’s case in substance reveals that the apex court affirmed the conviction of the appellant on the assumption that, (1) the result of the preliminary (color) test conducted by the exhibit keeper at the NDLEA Command, using UN Narcotic Identification Testing Kit was the legal proof of the suspected substance as Indian hemp, instead of a chemist’s report on the mandatory confirmatory laboratory test by an analyst and, (2) the appellant’s confessional statement and guilty plea served as alternative proof that the suspected substance was Indian hemp even when the trial court did not carry out the test of veracity on the confessional statement. Findings: The two (2) assumptions by the apex court are the main findings in this work. Furthermore, even when the appellant was charged, tried and convicted for an offence constituted by expert evidence, no expert gave evidence at the trial, at least not on record. This work is of the view that extra-judicial confession made prior to analysis of a suspected substance cannot serve as proof of the nature of the substance, that is, Indian hemp. Moreover, the Nigerian Evidence Law having provided for the method for the analysis and identification of suspected substance in the trial of drug offences no other method can be used under the law.
尼日利亚毒品犯罪审判中可疑物质的分析和鉴定:Oyem诉FRN案述评
目的:审查的目的是要表明尼日利亚最高法院在Oyem诉FRN案中确认上诉人的定罪是错误的。为了达到这一目的,最好的办法是澄清最高法院因未能遵守法律而犯下的各种错误,并注意到审判毒品罪行程序的特殊性。方法论:这项工作采用理论的研究方法,涉及使用主要和次要的法律来源。在这项工作中使用的主要来源是立法(国民议会法案)、判例法和法令,而次要来源是书籍和文章。对Oyem案件的实质审查显示,最高法院在以下假设下维持了对上诉人的定罪:(1)NDLEA司令部的证物管理员使用联合国麻醉品鉴定测试试剂盒进行的初步(颜色)测试的结果是怀疑物质为印度大麻的法律证据,而不是化学家关于分析师强制性确认实验室测试的报告;(2)在初审法院未对供词进行真实性检验的情况下,上诉人的供词和认罪供词作为证明嫌疑物质为印度大麻的替代证据。研究结果:两(2)假设由最高法院是本工作的主要发现。此外,即使上诉人因专家证据构成的罪行而受到指控、审判和定罪,也没有专家在审判中提供证据,至少没有记录在案。这项工作的观点是,在分析一种可疑物质之前作出的法外供词不能作为该物质的性质的证据,即印度大麻。此外,尼日利亚的《证据法》规定了在审判毒品犯罪时分析和鉴定可疑物质的方法,但法律规定不能使用其他方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信