. • • • .JI 111 cn1u11 oerore the court having met the requirements of the law as ;nvisag~d by sec ion 146 of the ACJL 201Q is competent and I sci hold. · ._,,Again o~ the su mission that that there · is no official indication that I ' the sai9 counsel U. V. Ekwerekwu i_s in the employ of the office of Attorney Gener I Ministry of Justice Onitsha Anambra state. The court's ~ecords o proof of evidence 4nd all the docur111ents filed in this suit on behalf o the prosecution w·ere all certified by the said u.v Ekwere~u Esq. enior State Counse'I, using the official stamp of the Ministry·of Justic . Throughout the proceeding the said U.V Ekwerekwu Esq . appeared as: Senior State Counsel with R. C Aganamah Onyeze, S~nior State Cou ~sel for the State . The abundant evidence before the Court shows oth , rwise . The instant pbjection of the counsel for the Defendant holds o water and is hereby overruled. The .Defendant ounsel also argueq that the Defendant was not properly arraigne and also that section 17 of th~ Administration of the -.C riminal Ju tice Act, 2015 wks not complied with by the ' I ~ p~osecut!on . l: • Thus the SupremiCourt has in the c se of ABD_ULLAHI IBRAHIM VS Tt-lE STATE 2013 , SCN (PT. I) 145 at 161, considered the elements of a y al jd plea, prop~r arraignment and how it touches the Jurisdiction of ihe Court and staied that for a Defendant to be validly arraigned the 1 \ . following conditions must be met :9. "That the accused shall be placed before the Court unf ettered. b. The Charge 1 was read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the Court. .: c.' · The Charge must be read in the la~guage he understands. a.~. The accused shall then be cal/et;/ to plead instantly (unless an objection in respect of want of servite of a copy of information is - 1 · successf ully taken)" $Vil NO. 0/49' /2016: THE STATl VS CHIBUIKE OURU ' Judgment deli-vered on 19/04/2018