A collection of authorities for a no case submission on charges under section 7(c) of the National Drugs Control Act 2008 and accessory before the fact.
Legal Authorities for No Case Submission
Target Charges: Section 7(c) National Drugs Control Act 2008 (Importation) & Accessory Liability 1. The Primary Test for "No Case to Answer"
The foundational principle for all common law jurisdictions (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, UK) is that a judge must stop the trial if the prosecution's evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury/tribunal could not properly convict.
R v Galbraith 1 WLR 1039 (UK)
- Principle: Established the two-pronged test. Limb 1: There is "no evidence" that the crime was committed by the . Limb 2: There is "some evidence" but it is so tenuous (vague or inconsistent) that it is unsafe to proceed.
- Application: In your case, the search was negative, and the presence of ONS/ Customs makes the claim that your clients "allowed" drugs to pass inherently weak.
- Download/View Summary via UK Judiciary
Ajayi v State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 589 (Nigeria):
- Principle: A "No Case" submission should be upheld where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been so discredited during cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal could act on it.
2. Lack of Forensic Evidence and Exhibit Confrontation
The failure of the police to test the drugs in relation to your clients or confront them with the exhibits is a major evidentiary gap.
Oyem v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2022) LPELR-57311(SC) (Nigeria)
- Principle: For drug offences, the nature of the substance must be proved , usually through expert chemist reports. Extra-judicial confessions or mere suspicion cannot replace forensic proof.
- Application: Since the drugs were linked to "Habib" and not tested against your clients' timeline, thecorpus delicti(body of the crime) is missing as it pertains to these four accused.
- Analysis of Oyem v FRN
Bharat Aambale v State of Chhattisgarh (2025) INSC 78 (India):
- Principle: Strict compliance with drug seizure protocols (inventory and magistrate certification) is mandatory. Non-compliance vitiates the trial.
- Application: The failure of the Sierra Leone police to reconstruct the crime scene or involve the accused in the exhibit verification process mirrors this procedural failure.
- View Case via Indian Kanoon
3. Accessory Liability and Intervening Acts To be an accessory, there must be a "link in purpose" between the worker and the importer.
R v Phan (2001) 53 NSWLR 480 (Common Law Authority)
- Principle: An accessory must be "linked in purpose" with the principal. Mere presence at the scene or failing to stop a crime isn't enough unless there is a duty and intentional assistance.
- Application: If "Juanis" stole the drugs later, his act is a "" (a new intervening act) that breaks any alleged assistance provided by the airport workers.
The State v Ibrahim Sesay (2021) SL High Court (Sexual Offences Model
Court)
- Principle: Although this was a sexual offences case, Justice Jamesina King emphasized a universal evidentiary principle: where forensic tests (such as DNA or medical verification) are available but not conducted, the court should be extremely wary of convicting on circumstantial evidence or uncorroborated testimony alone.
- Application: This supports the argument that the prosecution's failure to conduct a forensic "nexus" test between the drugs found and your clients' search activity is a fatal flaw in the investigation.
- View Ruling via SL Judiciary
4. Key Submission Points for the Court
Sufficiency of Evidence: Rely onGalbraithto argue that the evidence of "importation" is non-existent because the search conducted by the accused was negative and observed by other state agents (ONS/Customs).
Chain of Custody: CiteOyem v FRNto argue that the prosecution cannot prove the identity of the drug in relation to these accused because they were never confronted with it.
Third-Party Intervention: Argue that the actions of "Juanis" represent the actual criminal act, and the prosecution has failed to provide a "nexus" or "common design" connecting the workers to Juanis or Habib.
Procedural Delay: Under theCriminal Procedure Act 2024, argue that the two-month delay in questioning without a crime scene visit has prejudiced the defendants' ability to provide a contemporary defense.
1.
2.
3.
4.