FRN v Jokolo: The Limits of Territorial Jurisdiction

This article by learned Senior Advocate, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, discusses the money laundering case, FRN v Jokolo (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2054) 351, transferred from Kano to Abuja by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for security reasons. He shares the reasons why the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the Chief Judge to authorise this transfer, while explaining some of the rules that must be followed by an Appellant in filing a criminal appeal using this case as his template

Introduction 

Nigeria is facing multi-dimensional attacks from various terror groups across the Sahel region, ranging from banditry, armed robbery, cattle rustling, land grabbing, kidnapping to brute terrorism. There are different versions of the philosophy underpinning this global menace, from supposed economic imbalances to political alliances, mines and minerals, territorial conquests and even religion. The important thing is, for the Government and the people to rise up to the occasion to provide adequate safety and protection for all. It bears repeating, even for a trillion times, now and always, that the ultimate purpose of government is the security and welfare of the people. In all cases, the resort to law by the Government and all state and non-State actors, as one of the major sources of combating and addressing this malaise must be supported and commended by all. 

In many ways, we are all affected by the multiplication of these terror groups across different parts of the nation, necessitating urgent and effective action plans and modalities for prompt containment, mass resistance and ultimate dismantling. This is why the case of FRN v Jokolo has featured in this space, given the ingenious manner in which the head of one of the avenues of combating terrorism, deployed his administrative and judicial power to aid effective prosecution. The investigating and prosecuting agencies involved, are equally commended for their commitment and diligence.

Facts of the Case

The facts of this case, as reported in FRN v Jokolo (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2054) 351, are that the Respondent was the 3rd Defendant with seven other Defendants who were initially charged and arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division, on 28-count charge of money laundering and conspiracy contrary to Sections 14(1)(a), 15(1), (3) and 17(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2004. Upon application by the prosecuting agency, the case was subsequently transferred to the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for security reasons. 

At the trial, the prosecution in proof of the charge preferred against the Respondent called 17 witnesses, tendered a bundle of documents which were admitted as exhibits, and closed its case. The Respondent and other Defendants, elected to make a no-case submission.

Decision  of the Courts 

The trial court in its ruling, overruled the Respondent’s no-case submission. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed the appeal on the grounds that the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court allowed the said appeal. 

Supreme Court’s Issue for Determination 

In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the provisions Sections 93(2), 98(1) and 387 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015; Section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, and Order 17, Rules 1-5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Power of Chief Judge of a High Court to Transfer a Criminal Case from One Court to Another and When Exercisable

By virtue of Section 98(1) of the Administration of Criminal Act, 2015 (ACJA), the Chief Judge of a High Court may, where it appears to him that the transfer of a case will promote the ends of justice or will be in the interest of the public peace, transfer any case from one court to another. This power is a crucial tool to foster efficient administration of justice, especially in sensitive cases where security concerns, potential bias, or public unrest might compromise a fair trial or public order in the original jurisdiction. 

To underscore the importance of security in a criminal trial, Section 93(2) of the Act also provides that a criminal charge shall be filed and tried in the Division where the alleged offence was committed, unless it can be shown that it is convenient to do otherwise for security reasons. The phrase “interests of the public peace”, is particularly relevant to situations involving insecurity. In circumstances where the prevailing security situation in a particular territorial jurisdiction might compromise the safety of parties, witnesses, judicial officers, or the general public, or might otherwise impede the fair and impartial conduct of a trial, the Chief Judge can invoke the power. The “ends of justice” also encompasses the need to ensure that trials are conducted in an environment free from intimidation and undue influence, which insecurity can engender. The limitation under Section 98(2) of the Act, that the power shall not be exercised where the prosecution has called witness, only implies that such transfers are generally intended for earlier stages of proceedings, as it was in the instant case.

The Power of Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to Transfer Criminal Case from One Court to Another

The power conferred on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another, particularly by reason of insecurity, is a critical aspect of judicial administration aimed at ensuring justice, public peace, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. The power is primarily derived from statutory provisions, and is supported by judicial pronouncements.

The Duty on Chief Judge Before Transferring a Case Based on Petition Under ACJA

By virtue of Section 98(3) of ACJA, before a Chief Judge can exercise his powers to transfer a case to another judicial division, the application or petition to transfer shall be investigated within one week by not more than three reputable legal practitioners, who shall submit their report within two weeks of their appointment. In this case, the Respondent’s argument that the Chief Judge could not have complied with the formal requirement within three days was speculative. The Respondent failed to prove that the Chief Judge did not comply with the procedure as prescribed by the statute, before the matter was transferred to Abuja.

The Territorial Jurisdiction of Federal High Court vis-à-vis High Courts of a State and Federal Capital Territory

By virtue of Section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, the Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation, and for that purpose the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the Chief Judge into such number of Judicial Divisions (not less than four) as he may, from time to time, specify and he may designate any such Judicial Division or part thereof by such name as he may think fit. Thus, the Federal High Court enjoys nationwide jurisdiction, while a State High Court is confined to the territory of the State and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory is confined to Federal Capital Territory.

The Limit to Application of Principle of Territorial Jurisdiction

The principle of territorial jurisdiction dictates that an offence shall be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed. This is enshrined in Section 45(a) of the Federal High Court Act, which states that an offence shall be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction in the area or place where the offence was committed. This principle ensures that the court has the geographical competence to hear and determine the matter. However, this general rule is subject to the power of transfer statutorily conferred on the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. In the instant case, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court acted under Section 98 of ACJA, and transferred the case from Kano to Abuja. In that situation, raising an issue of territorial jurisdiction is sterile and futile.

The Power of Chief Judge of Federal High Court to Assign or Transfer Cases Within the Jurisdiction of the Court

The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court is bestowed with the administrative powers to assign cases to a court, withdraw a case from a particular court, and transfer cases anywhere within the jurisdiction, that is, within the entire Federation to promote the ends of justice. This power is exclusive, and cannot be shared with the Chief Judge.

The Effect of Transfer of Case from One Jurisdiction to Another

When a Chief Judge exercises the power to transfer a criminal case from one jurisdiction to another for security reasons under Section 98(1) of ACJA, it is generally not a requirement that the element of the offence charged must have been committed in the new jurisdiction to which the case is transferred. The power of transfer under Section 98(1) of the Act is an administrative and judicial prerogative designed to ensure the ends of justice and public peace, which takes precedence over the territorial jurisdiction rule for the specific purpose of the transfer.

The Effect of Transfer of Criminal Cases from One Court to Another on Jurisdiction of Receiving Court

Once a case is validly transferred by the Chief Judge, the receiving court, by virtue of Section 387 of ACJA, acquires the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, irrespective of whether the locus criminis falls within its geographical area. The jurisdiction of the new court is derived from the order of the Chief Judge, not from the original territory where the offence was allegedly committed. In the instant case, the question of whether any part of the offences charged was committed in Abuja, was redundant and inessential.

The Principle Guiding Criminal Appeals

The fundamental principle guiding criminal appeals is that, an appeal is a challenge by an aggrieved party against a decision of a lower court that directly affects him. The notice of appeal serves to formally notify the appellate court and the Respondent, typically the State or, as in the instant case at the lower court, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, of the Appellant’s intention to appeal, and the specific grounds upon which the appeal is based, pertaining to his own conviction or sentence.

Whether Filing of Joint Notice of Appeal Allowed in Criminal Matters

Although, in civil matters, the Appellants are at liberty to file a joint notice of appeal, the filing of a joint notice of appeal is not allowed in criminal matters. A joint notice of appeal filed in criminal matters will be incurably defective and incompetent, this is so because it will complicate the appeal and imply that the Appellant is inviting the appellate court to determine the rights of the co-accused as well. A court is bound to strike out such notice of appeal, even without inviting Counsel to address the court on the issue, and such will not occasion a miscarriage of justice. This is because any appeal that originated without following the rules of court, is incompetent. In this case, the failure of the Respondent to include names of his co-accused as Respondents on the notice of appeal was not an irregularity, and it did not affect the merits of the appeal as constituted at the Court of Appeal.

Whether it is Mandatory in Criminal Appeals to Include the Names of Co-accused in a Notice of Appeal

In criminal appeals, it is not mandatory for an Appellant to include the names of co-accused at the trial court in his notice of appeal, if those co-accused are not affected by the appeal. The Court of Appeal Rules generally outline the requirements for a notice of appeal, which centre on the Appellant and the judgement. It is therefore, not necessary for an Appellant to endorse his co-accused as part of the parties to the appeal, when the appeal is for himself only. The rules do not impose a mandate on a sole Appellant to include his co-accused; this is because it implies that the lower court was being invited to determine the rights or involvement of other Defendants in the appeal filed thereat. 

Conversely, if a co-accused is not appealing, or has been acquitted, or their case is entirely distinct from the Appellant’s grounds of appeal, there is no legal or procedural requirement to name them in the notice of appeal. Therefore, including unaffected parties would be superfluous, and could potentially complicate the appeal process by introducing irrelevant details.

The Individualised or Personalised Nature of Criminal Appeals

The entire gamut of a criminal appeal is individualised or personalised. Sections 27 of the Court of Appeal Act and 30 of the Supreme Court Act, emphasise the Appellant’s right to be present during the hearing of his criminal appeal, which further emphasises the personalised nature of the appeal process. The focus is on the individual Appellant’s rights and his challenge to the judgement or ruling. Therefore, an Appellant’s notice of appeal should primarily concern himself and the Respondent, without necessarily listing co-accused who are not parties to the specific appeal being filed. The attitude of appellate court to an Appellant’s brief which proffers argument in respect of a co-accused who has a separate appeal, is one of displeasure. The appeal of a co-accused even, where they exist, are treated distinctly, thereby reinforcing the idea that an Appellant’s appeal is personal. The appellate court’s jurisdiction is invoked by the Appellant to review the decision affecting him, not to re-litigate the entire trial involving all original parties.

The Method of Filing Notices of Criminal Appeals at the Court of Appeal

The method of filing notices of criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal is provided for under Order 17 Rule 1-5, part 3 of Court of Appeal Rules 2021. Order 17 Rule 1 states that the order shall apply to appeals to the court from any court or tribunal acting either in its original or appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, other than a Court Martial, and to matters related thereto. Order 17 Rule 2 – 5 allow individuals who are aggrieved by the judgement of the trial court to file notice of appeal or any other application, and sign same either personally or by a legal representative. It does not require that all the Defendants at the court must be listed as Appellants or Respondents as the case may be, on the notice of appeal.

The Nature of Appeal and What a Rehearing of Appeal Entails

All appeals shall be by way of rehearing. A rehearing is a review of the judgement as it pertains to the specific Appellant, and his challenge to the findings or sentence against him. A rehearing is distinct from a retrial, in the sense that it is not a retrial of all parties involved in the original case.

The Power of Chief Judge of Federal High Court to Make Rules

By Section 254 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court is empowered, subject to the provisions of any Act of the National Assembly, to make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Federal High Court.

The Presumption of Regularity of Official and Judicial Acts

By virtue of Section 168(1) of Evidence Act, when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with. This is enshrined in the Latin maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta donec probetur in”, which means that all acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly until the contrary is proved. It is a rebuttable presumption that holds true, unless sufficient evidence is presented to prove otherwise. This provision is crucial, for the efficient functioning of the legal and administrative systems. It relieves parties from the onerous burden of proving every minute detail of procedural compliance for acts performed by public officials or judicial bodies, thereby fostering public confidence in the integrity of such processes. 

For instance, if a court order is issued or the court performs its administrative functions, it is presumed that all necessary procedural steps were observed, unless evidence to the contrary is adduced. 

In the instant case, the Respondent failed to prove that the Chief Judge did not comply with the formal requirements within three days, before the matter was transferred to Abuja. The Court of Appeal was therefore, in error, when it held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The Importance of Jurisdiction and How it is Conferred

The issue of jurisdiction is critical, in the hearing and determination of any case before a court. Jurisdiction is conferred on the court by statute. The court cannot gift itself jurisdiction, neither can the parties confer jurisdiction on the court. When an issue of jurisdiction arises, the relevant statute must be scrutinised to determine the issue.

The Primary Purpose of a Notice of Appeal

The primary purpose of a notice of appeal, is to identify the Appellant, the Respondent, the decision being appealed against, and the grounds of appeal. The focus is on the Appellant’s grievance with the judgement of the lower court, as it relates to his individual case.

Power of Supreme Court to Formulate Issues for Determination and Basis of

The Supreme Court is at liberty and possesses the power to accept, reject or modify all or any of the issues formulated by the parties and frame its own issues, if such issues as formulated by the parties will not lead to a proper determination of the appeal. The purpose of formulating issues for determination is to narrow the issues in controversy between the parties in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity, to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal.

Postscript 

This case highlights the power and influence of the Court, over virtually all matters as allowed or defined by law. The point to make is that the Judiciary is, and remains the gateway to justice through which the security agencies can, and should collaborate to fight terror, crime and other criminalities. Anything short of this will amount to self-help and may actually work to defeat the purpose. Presently, Nigeria’s primary legal weapon against insecurity is the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. This law establishes the National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) under the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), to coordinate all national security responses. The framework strengthens anti-terrorism efforts through specific statutory mechanisms, such as Sections 2 and 3 which empower the Federal High Court, upon an application by the Attorney-General, to declare an organisation a terrorist group. This criminalises membership and possession of its insignia. Section 53 mandates the freezing, seizure, and forfeiture of funds or property suspected to be linked to terrorist financing. Financial institutions must report suspicious transactions immediately to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). Section 29 permits law enforcement agencies to intercept communications, tap telephone lines, and access computer systems through an ex-parte application for approval by the Federal High Court, to balance State security with privacy rights. In appropriate situations, cases like that of FRN v Jokolo should serve to guide us, on how to deploy judicial power in the fight against crime and criminals.

Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN