*Does plea bargain have same consequences as normal conviction?

Plea bargain in Nigeria and most countries is a form of negotiation between the prosecutor and the defendant wherein the latter agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence or punishment.

The benefit of plea bargain, according to lawyers, is that it allows a defendant to agree with the prosecution to plead guilty to a lesser offence or to receive a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation or other considerations. They, however, said the implication of a plea bargain is that it provides a win-win situation for both the State and the accused. It is a win for the state in such a way that the conviction upon a plea bargain adds in number to the successful convictions by the state as well as saves the state from wasting scarce resources and on the other hand, a win for the suspect because he receives a reduced charge and sentence for admitting to the crime. Others view it as a situation where the hand of a judge is tied, meaning that the judge cannot give the maximum sentence for the crime admitted because to do that would mean a violation of the fundamentals of plea bargain. So, the sentence that will be given by the judge may be ridiculous and disproportionate to the crime committed. Former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher (rtd) at a conference organised in Abuja on November 14, 2011 by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) themed: “Legal Practice in Nigeria: Venturing Beyond the usual borders”, described plea bargain as a novel concept of dubious origin.

His words: “It has no place in our law – substantive or procedural. It was invented to provide soft landing for high-profile criminals who loot the treasury entrusted to them…it should never again be mentioned in our jurisprudence.” The Court of Appeal, Abuja in 2020 had ruled that an appeal can be filed against a plea bargain judgment contrary to the provision of Section 270(18) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. A three-man panel of the court led by Justice Abdu Aboki struck down Section 270(18) of the ACJA for being unconstitutional. Section 270(18) of the ACJA nullified by the court had prohibited filing an appeal against a judgment of the trial court that is based on a plea bargain agreement. But Justice Emmanuel Agim, who delivered the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal held that the section of the ACJA contravened the provision of Section 241(1)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, which gave an appellant in a case the right of appeal.

He ruled: “I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that Section 270(18) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act takes away the right to appeal given by Section 241(1)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution to the appellant to appeal as of right against the judgment convicting him consequent upon a plea agreement being a final decision in criminal proceedings before the trial court sitting at first instance. “By providing that no appeal shall lie in any court against such judgment except where fraud is alleged, Section 270 (18) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act also ousts the general power vested in this court by Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution to hear and determine appeals from the trial court.” The Court of Appeal’s judgment came two weeks after the Supreme Court, on May 8, 2020, struck down Section 396 (7) of the law in a verdict, which nullified the trial and conviction of a former Governor of Abia State, Orji Kalu, for N7.1 billion fraud. The Supreme Court had in the judgment declared Section 396(7) of the ACJA unconstitutional and the trial based on it a nullity,on the ground that Justice Mohammed Idris, who conducted the trial at the Federal High Court in Lagos, had already become a Justice of the Court of Appeal bench before handing down the judgment. The Court of Appeal’s judgment marked CA/A/767c/2019 was filed by a cybercrime convict, Chinaka Promise, on August 15, 2019, challenging a judgment delivered by Justice Muawiyah Idris of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, which had sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment contrary to a plea bargain agreement he had with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). However, some lawyers said the benefits can include the dropping of one or multiple charges, which includes the reduction of the charge against the defendant to a less serious one. However, the underlying question in the lips of many is whether plea bargain, even though it mitigates punishment, does have the same consequences as a normal conviction. An Abuja-based lawyer, M.I. Arrifi believes it does. He said a plea bargain has the same consequence on a convict as a normal conviction. Citing the matter In PML (Nig.) LTD v FRN, the lawyer said, the Supreme Court defined plea bargaining as “a negotiation between an accused and the prosecution, in which the accused agrees to plead “guilty to some crimes in return for a reduction of the severity of the charges, dismissal of some of the charges, and the prosecutor’s willingness to recommend a particular sentence or other benefits to the accused.”

The lawyer held that Section 494 (1) of the ACJA defines plea bargain to mean the process in criminal proceedings whereby the defendant and the prosecution work out a mutually acceptable disposition of the case, including the plea of the defendant to a lesser offence than what was charged in the complaint or information and in conformity with other conditions imposed by the prosecution, in return for a lighter sentence than that for the higher charge, subject to the court’s approval. Also, Monday Ikpe, a lawyer, agreed that a plea bargain has the same consequences as a normal conviction. He, however, added that the difference is that it is normally an agreement between the accused person (defendant) and the prosecutor in which the accused agrees to plead guilty and receives a lighter sentence for the crime. He pointed out that the essence of plea bargain is for lessening the punishment of the accused person, adding that it does not subtract from the fact that such accused person who pleaded guilty has not mitigated the effect of guilt as pronounced by the court.

David Ogungbemi, a lawyer, also shed more light on the importance of plea bargaining. He stated that plea bargaining accelerates the justice system and reduces the already cumbersome cases before a court; hence, most countries need to adopt plea bargaining because it reduces long adjudication processes and fast tracks the matter before the court, the prosecutor, and the accused persons or defendant.

Akintayo Balogun, a lawyer, was also emphatic that plea bargain has the same consequence as conviction, though on a lesser charge for which one has pleaded guilty. “Plea bargain is an arrangement between the prosecution and the defendant(s), whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence or an agreement to drop other charges,” he explained, adding that it does not totally exonerate the defendant. According to the lawyer, part of the punishment on the side of the convict in a case of embezzlement is that the fellow surrenders most of what he or she has stolen and all those charges would be dropped against him or her. “This, however, does not remove the stain of conviction on the defendant. He forever remains a convict until he is pardoned by the president or by the governor of his State,” he explained.

For Ugochukwu Ezekiel, a lawyer, plea bargain in some cases helps the State to get a faster and less costly conviction, especially when evidence is scanty or witnesses are not ready to testify. According to him, the defendant gets a smaller sentence and the State does not need to spend time and resources in a rigorous trial. Ezekiel added that in some cases, the defendant returns some part of the fund, if he or she is accused of fraud. However, a lawyer, Prince Mandela, thinks differently. He argued that a plea bargain may not have the same consequences as real conviction, when the legal action did not run its full course. According to him, a plea bargain has the same consequence as a conviction when the full course of legal action ran completely. He argued that since plea bargain processes hardly go through the whole hog of trial, the outcome cannot be the same for both.