Criminal Law and Procedure: Order of Retrial- whether it is an exception to the principle of double jeopardy

Criminal Law and Procedure: Principles of double jeopardy – consideration thereof – section 36 (9) of CFRN 1999 considered.

Criminal Law and Procedure: Retrial order- when made by an appellate court- whether it becomes valid under the proviso to sec. 36(9) of CFRN,1999 – the principle in Emenuwe vs. The State (2024) LPELR -62735(SC)

Criminal Law and Procedure: Retrial order- where a retrial order is made by an appellate court- whether it is an exception to the Principle of double jeopardy – sec. 19(2) of the Court of Appeal Act and sec. 26 of the Supreme Court Act, considered.

Criminal Law and Procedure: Order of retrial- where an appellate court orders for retrial – whether it involves absolute exercise of discretion.

Criminal Law and Procedure: Order of retrial- relevant conditions precedent thereto

Court:  Exercise of discretion – whether court must act judicially and judiciously – meaning of judiciously and judicially

Criminal Law and Procedure: Duty of court to evaluate evidence and make findings – where a trial court has evaluated evidence and make specific findings – whether a party on appeal can no longer raise the issue of substantiality of evidence

Criminal Law and Procedure: Order of retrial – where an accused has served his sentence or a greater portion of it – whether it will occasion miscarriage of justice for an appellate court to order a retrial.

Judgment and Order: Oppressive order – meaning

Practice and Procedure: Retrial- nature and meaning thereof

Words and Phrases: Miscarriage of justice – meaning

Issue:

Whether the Appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing was not violated when he was tried, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge who while serving as Director of Public Prosecution Niger State had knowledge and involvements in the case and indeed initiated the charge against the Appellant and others;

And upon an affirmative determination of the above question: Whether the trial Court was competent to preside over the trial of the Appellant.