By Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq.
At the beginning of the year, Senator Godswill Akpabio, the President of the Nigerian Senate, reportedly made a statement in church that he had forgiven those who had offended him, and that he would direct his lawyers to withdraw complaints and discontinue matters against them.
Not long after, the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation filed a Notice of Discontinuance under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, and the trial court struck out the charge on that basis.
Following this, Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan was seen in the press celebrating what she presented as victory in the criminal case that had been pending against her in Abuja. While it is within her rights to celebrate, her posture suggests a misunderstanding of what the law, in fact, means by a withdrawal and a strike out.
In criminal justice, a charge that is withdrawn and then struck out is not the same thing as a charge that has been dismissed on the merits, and it is not the same thing as an acquittal after trial. Striking out of a charge pursuant to order of Court following notice of discontinuance filed by the prosecution, simply means the prosecution has chosen not to proceed for the time being. It does not necessarily mean the allegations have been judicially tested and found false and it does not amount to acquittal of the accused as a Defendant can only be acquitted when evidence has been taken and the Defendant is found non guilty.
In essence, where a charge is withdrawn and struck out such as in the instant case of Natasha, the prosecution may,
subject to the law and due process, refiled or re- arraigned the Defendant.
This is why public celebration ought to be measured, and why a reconciliation posture should follow, especially where the withdrawal is being driven by forgiveness, restraint, or political de escalation. Where peace is offered, wisdom demands that peace be protected.
Under Nigerian criminal procedure, discontinuance is a recognised prosecutorial decision, typically exercised through the Attorney General’s constitutional powers and implemented under the ACJA framework. Where a matter is struck out on that basis, the key point is that the case was not determined on the merit. And where a case is not determined on the merits, the door is not automatically locked forever. Subject to due process, and subject to the court’s power to prevent oppression or abuse, a fresh charge may still be brought. This general principle is reflected in appellate reasoning on discontinuance and criminal proceedings, where striking out is treated differently from acquittal.
In the case of Adeyemi v. State (1991) LPELR-172 (SC), the supreme Court held that;
“… a dismissal on the merits is a dismissal based on the facts or on law applicable to the facts. The facts come to light when evidence has been heard. In other words, a dismissal on the merits means a dismissal after evidence has been heard, or as the Chief justice observed, in the course of argument in this appeal, where there has been a trial”
In Olamiju v. Oluwatoyin (2022) LPELR-58243 (CA), the court held this; “In criminal proceedings, an accused person who is discharged can be made to face a criminal trial at the discretion of the prosecution. The accused person, therefore does not breathe the air of freedom forever and for all times. The prosecution has the power and discretion to return him to the dock the second time”.
This implies that irrespective of public conversations which often misunderstands what happened, a strike out is not a certificate of innocence. It is not a judicial endorsement. It is not a legal trophy. It is, at best, a procedural exit taken by the prosecution. In a political culture where public power is often used to prolong conflict, the choice to withdraw a criminal complaint and allow the state to discontinue can be a more statesmanlike move. It lowers the temperature. It reduces the incentive for the coercive machinery of the state to look like an instrument for personal quarrels. It makes room for politics to return to its proper arena, persuasion and public accountability, not intimidation by prosecution.
There is a bigger lesson here, beyond courtroom vocabulary. So if this moment must be described as victory, the more accurate framing is not triumph by conquest, but relief by restraint. The hero of such a moment is not necessarily the loudest celebrant. It is the person who had the option to escalate, but chose to step back, whether for peace, public interest, or political maturity.
Senator Natasha may feel relieved, and that is human. But law rewards careful speech. In legal reality, discontinuance is not an acquittal. It is not the end of the road. It is a bend in the road, and in a system where power and prosecution can sometimes walk too closely together, a bend is not the same thing as safety.
Pelumi Olajengbesi Esq., is a Legal Practitioner and Senior Partner at Law Corridor.