At the close of the prosecution’s case the defendant will be called upon by the court to present his case and make his defence. See S.240(1) ACJL Lagos, S.287 CPA & S.358 ACJA
At the close of the prosecution’s case the defendant will be called upon by the court to present his case and make his defence. See S.240(1) ACJL Lagos, S.287 CPA & S.358 ACJA
This is when the defence offers no explanation by way of witness or evidence in rebuttal of the charge against him. It means that the accused does not wish to place any facts before the court other than those presented by the prosecution in evidence. His conviction or acquittal rests solely based on the evidence of the prosecution. See Ali v. The State (1988)
A defendant should rest his case on that of the prosecution if the prosecution’s case is manifestly unsupported by evidence, completely unreliable, discredited by cross-examination or where a fundamental ingredient has not been proven. See per Oputa JSC in Ali v The State (1988)
Where a defendant decides on the above, he forecloses his own right to call witnesses or put in evidence. His conviction or acquittal rests solely based on the evidence of the prosecution. See Akwa v. Commissioner of Police (2002)
If at the end of the Prosecution's case, the defence feels he has no case to answer, he can make a no case submission. This application may be made by the defendant or raised by the court suo motu where in its opinion the defence has failed to make a prima facie case against the defendant. See S.239 ACJL Lagos, S.302,303 ACJA, Adama v. The State (2017)
The grounds upon which a no case submission may be made are statutorily provided for in S.303(3) ACJA. The following grounds are not cumulative and submission of no case to answer may be granted on any one of them. The court in exercising its discretion will have regard to the following:
a. an essential element of the offence has been proved.
b. There is evidence linking the defendant with the commission of the offence with which he is charged;
c. The evidence so far led is such that no reasonable court or tribunal would convict on it; and
d. Any other ground on which the court may find that a prima facie case has not been made out against the defendant for him to be called upon to answer.
Where a no case submission is decided by the court to be well founded and is upheld by the court, the defendant will be discharged and acquitted. S.239ACJL Lagos, S.302 ACJA. It also means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the defendant committed the offence and a plea of autres fois acquit will avail the defendant if prosecuted again on the same charge. See IGP v. Marke (1957), Nyame v. FRN (2010)
Where a no case submission is made the accused still reserves the right to enter a defence if the submission is overruled. However, where the defendant rests his case on that of the prosecution, he forecloses his opportunity of entering a defence to the charge; as such where this choice is not well founded and fails, he does not have a second opportunity to put forward a defence. See Akwa & Ors v. Commissioner of Police (2002)
Where a prima facie case is made out against the defendant, but he is not represented by a legal practitioner, in such circumstance the court shall inform him of three alternatives open to him namely;
a. He may make a statement, without being sworn, from the place where he then is, in which case he will not be liable to cross-examination; or
b. he may give evidence in the witness box, after being sworn as a witness and will be liable to cross-examination; or
c. he need not say anything at all, if he so wishes, and the court shall inquire if he has any witnesses to examine or other evidence to adduce in his defence and the Court shall then hear the defendant and his witnesses. See S.358(1) ACJA
Generally, the prosecution cannot call witnesses once the defence has closed his case, However, if the defence adduces in his evidence new matters which the complainant could not foresee, the complainant may with the leave of the court adduce evidence to rebut the new evidence. This is also called the "Improviso rule". See S.289 CPL, S.241 ACJL Lagos, Bala v. COP (1973)