ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN NIGERIA

Abstract

This article gives a critical study of the grounds guiding the rule against double jeopardy in Nigeria, constitutionally incorporated in Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution.  It argues that while the provision offers an absolute shield against double vexation, its judicial application through the ‘same offence’ test, the requirement of a ‘competent court,’ and the principle of finality has often been restrictive and formalistic, potentially undermining the rule’s fundamental rights rationale.  The study concentrates on important decisions such as State v Ogbomor, which established the ‘same in law and fact’ test, and Okeke v The State, which disclosed the loophole caused by discriminating between administrative and criminal actions.  The paper further discusses modern difficulties, including the unsolved federalism conundrum and the potential for abuse through prosecutorial techniques like nolle prosequi.  It concludes that the current jurisprudence requires evolution to sustain the rule’s efficacy. The article consequently recommends a judicial shift towards a supplemental ‘same conduct’ analysis, a rejection of the dual sovereignty doctrine in Nigeria’s federal context, and legislative amendments to curb the oppressive use of discontinuance procedures, thereby realigning the application of the rule with its paramount purpose as a guardian of liberty.