Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

PURPOSE OF ALLOCUTUS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

By dint of Section 11(b) of the NDLEA Act, 2004 a term of life imprisonment is the maximum sentence the convict, of the offence the Appellant was charged with, should expect. The complaint of the Appellant that the trial Court did not properly exercise its discretion in the imposition on him of the sentence of “imprison for life” is not supported by any empirical fact. The opportunity for plea of allocutus offers the Appellant the occasion to show cause why the sentence prescribed by Section 11(b) of NDLEA Act should not be passed or imposed on him. He failed to testify to utilise the opportunity.

— E. Eko, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

ALLOCUTUS IS FOR THE CONVICT TO PLEAD

“Allocutus”, as defined in Earl Jowitt: The Dictionary of English Law, is what the convict has to say why the Court should not proceed to sentence him. That is, what the convict shows “why the sentence should not be passed”. The convict, not the defence Counsel pleads his allocutus. In other words, it is for the convict himself to show cause why the prescribed sentence for the offence he was convicted of be not passed or imposed on him.

— E. Eko, JSC. Francis v. FRN (2020) – SC.810/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

IT IS A SERIOUS ERROR IN LAW TO RECORD AN ALLOCUTUS FOR AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE TRIAL

In this regard in my view, a more serious error of law committed by the 1st respondent is at page 35 of the record where 1st respondent after finding all accused persons guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3 in the absence of the 3rd accused person, proceeded as follows: “Previous conviction: Nil Allocutus: Accused persons pleaded for leniency.” Certainly, for the 1st respondent to attribute a plea of leniency to the 3rd accused person who was absent in court on the day the judgment was delivered, may call into question the status of the proceedings of the court of that day as to whether or not such proceedings can qualify as judicial proceedings of a court of law. In other words, by refusing to record the absence of the 3rd accused person but recording what the absent 3rd accused person did not say in court that day, had in my view, constituted a serious error of law on the face of the record of that inferior court to justify the removal of the entire proceedings of that court to the High Court by certiorari order to be quashed by the High Court as sought by the appellants in their application in exercise of the supervisory powers of the High Court.

— M. Mohammed JSC. The State v. Monsurat Lawal (SC. 80/2004, 15 Feb 2013)

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 544 | UO – 0 | GO – 476 | BO – 68

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.