Condonation And Compounding Of Offences In Nigeria By O. G. Chukkol

I reported my neighbor to the police and they have charged him
to court. Now I have forgiven him and I don’t want the matter to
proceed but the police are insisting that they will go on with the
case. Is it possible for me to withdraw it without their
consent?

Well, as a general rule the answer is yes. You can withdraw a
matter filed by the police without their consent if you are the
complainant/victim and such is called compounding of an
offence. Compounding of an offence is an act on the part
of the victim pardoning the offence committed by an accused person
and requesting the Court to exonerate him. It means the victim is
willing to pardon the accused, or has accepted some form of
compensation for what she or he has suffered, so the compounding of
the offence terminates the legal proceedings against the offender
and he/she is entitled to an acquittal.

In FRN v. Ononye (2018) LPELR-45067(CA), EFCC
filed three count charges of issuing dishonored cheques against
ONONYE at the High Court of Anambra State, Onitsha and Ononye
pleaded not guilty to the said charges. After Ononye was arraigned,
one Barrister Hippo C. Onwuegbuke announced his appearance for and
on behalf of Chief Kenneth Ndejiobi and applied for the withdrawal
and striking out of the charge and termination of the proceeding,
consequent upon which the Court struck out the charge. EFCC
appealed against the withdrawal of the suit and argued before the
Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal that the complainant was not
a party to the suit. That the complainant was merely a victim of
the offence. So, only EFCC could withdraw the case, not the
complainant or his lawyer who was merely holding a watching
brief.  The appealed failed. The Court of Appeal held that a
victim has the right to compound (pardon) an offence committed
against him even when the matter is before the court and a victim
can withdraw the matter without the need for the consent of the
state (subject however to certain exceptions were consent must be
sought).

See also the case of PML (NIG) LTD v. FRN (2017)
LPELR-43480(SC) where the Supreme Court pronounced on the
above position of the law.

WHAT ABOUT CONDONATION?

It is a term in family and military jurisprudence which simply
means an implied pardon of an offence by treating the offender as
if it had not been committed.

In Family Law, condonation is a defence to an action for divorce
that the innocent spouse having forgiven the adulterous spouse
cannot now take proceedings. In other words there is condonation
when one spouse, with full knowledge of the matrimonial wrong
committed by the other spouse, reinstates the offending spouse to
his or her earlier marital position, with the intention that the
spouse whose wrong is so condoned does not henceforth, commit any
further matrimonial offence. In such an instance it would be too
late to sue your spouse because the marriage cannot be dissolved
anymore. See section 26 of the. Matrimonial Causes Act and Sagay’s
book on Nigerian Family Law.

As for Military Law, Section 171 (1) (c) of the Armed
Forces Act provides that-

“Where a person subject to service law under this
Act

(c) Has had an offence condoned by his commanding officer,
he shall not be liable in respect of that offence to be tried by a
Court martial or to have the case dealt with summarily under this
Act”

In Nigerian, Army V. Aminu-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188)
429, Aminu Kano pleaded that by virtue of a document
(Exhibit P45), in which charges against him were withdrawn and
substituted with a “final warning letter”, he could not be
subjected to trial anymore as it amounted to condonation by his
commanding officer as provided by Section 171 of the Armed Forces
Act. This plea was dismissed and at the end of the day, he was
found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The Court of Appeal allowed
his appeal, and in dismissing the appeal filed in the Supreme
Court, Oguntade, JSC, observed-

“It is not in dispute that Section 171 of the Act divest any
Court or Tribunal of competence to subject the Respondent to any
further trial after having been condoned by the appropriate
authority. Thus, if any Court or Tribunal should proceed to make
pronouncements on persons such as the Respondent in spite of the
condonation and damning the consequences of lack of competence,
this Court cannot close its eyes on such abnormality or
illegality.”

Let me quickly state by way of concluding remarks that
compounding of offences by victims operate within a limit. In
FRN v. ONONYE (supra) Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A
expounded on the limitation as follows:

“Of Course, I understand the public policy implication of
compounding offences by complainants. It is clear that where the
offence is committed against tax payers and the citizens of this
country, (for example, cases of corruption) no one citizen can come
out as a complainant to presume to compound such an offence. Only
the State itself who could complain against corruption can withdraw
the charge by way of Nolle Prosequi. Also for public policy
reasons, where Life has been lost, the State is the complainant as
the State must protect the right of the person whose life was
unlawfully taken away by another who is not in a position to
compound the offence even if he/she would have been willing to do
so if alive”

O.G. Chukkol is a student, Faculty of Law, ABU, Zaria. For
corrections/criticisms, he can reached via [email protected]^[1]
or 08032470318

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!