INTRODUCTION
The concept of Plea Bargain became part of the federal law only in 2015 when the National Assembly enacted the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) in which in Part 28 of that Act, Section 270(7) makes provision for plea bargain agreement which it emphasizes that such agreement must be in writing.

It is instructive to note that hitherto to the enactment of ACJA, the concept of Plea Bargain had been part of our corpus juris and Courts in the land, particularly the apex Court has pronounced on the implication or incidence of plea bargain agreement. See the Supreme Court pronouncements in the following cases: PML (Securities) Company Limited v. FRN (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1635) 157 at 175 and Romrig (Nigeria) Limited v. FRN (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1642) 284 at 304.
However, there had not been any pronouncement of an appellate Court on the subject of Plea Bargain vis-à-vis the provisions of ACJA until the Court of Appeal’s pronouncement in the case of Olumide Agbi v. FRN delivered on the 25th day of March, 2020.
The appeal leading to the above pronouncement of the Court was filed by the Appellant against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja which was delivered on the 29th July, 2019 coram Honourable Justice Muawiyah Baba Idris.
In the said judgment, the trial Court convicted the Appellant of one count charge of Cheating preferred against him and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment. The Appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal on the 16th day of August, 2019.
The Court of Appeal (Abuja Division) coram Justices Olabisi Ige, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim and Mohammed Baba Idris, JJCA heard the appeal on the 19th February, 2020. The Court in a considered judgment delivered on 25th March, 2020 unanimously allowed the appeal.
FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL
The Respondent by a Charge dated and filed on 18th July 2019 arraigned the Appellant on a one count charge of Cheating on the 24th day of July, 2019. Filed together with the Charge is a duly executed Plea Bargain Agreement between the parties dated 27th June, 2019.
By the said Plea Bargain Agreement, the Appellant admitted the offence and the parties mutually agreed that the Appellant shall enter a plea of guilt, forfeit all the proceeds of the crime which he used to acquire a Macbook Air Laptop and that upon conviction the Appellant shall be sentenced to a term of one (1) month imprisonment or be given an option of fine. The whole essence of the Plea Bargain Agreement was for the Appellant to get a lighter punishment for his guilty plea.
Pursuant to the Plea Bargain Agreement, the Appellant on his arraignment on the 24th July, 2019 pleaded guilty to the one count Charge. Consequently, the Respondent’s Counsel at the trial Court (Ayodeji Fadalimsi, Esq.) informed the Court that the parties have filed a Plea Bargain Agreement and that the Appellant had returned all the proceed of crime. Hence, he urged the trial Court to give effect to the Plea Bargain Agreement in conviction and sentencing.
The trial Court, pursuant to the Appellant’s plea of guilty and the Plea Bargain Agreement, convicted the Appellant as charged. But rather than sentence the Appellant to a term of one (1) month imprisonment or be given an option of fine as contained in the Plea Bargain Agreement, the trial Court remanded the Appellant in prison custody.
On the 29th July, 2019 when the matter came up for sentencing, the Appellant’s Counsel at the trial Court (Adaji Abel, Esq.) referred the Court to the provisions of Section 270 (15) (b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and applied to withdraw the Appellant’s plea of guilt should the Court decide to pass a heavier sentence other than the one contained in the Plea Bargain Agreement. The Respondent’s Counsel at the trial Court also referred the Court to Section 270 (11) (a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and urged the Court to pass the sentence in line with the Act.
The Court however sentenced the Appellant to a maximum term of 3 years in imprisonment contrary to the Plea Bargain Agreement without informing the Appellant of the intended heavier sentence.
The Appellant, being dissatisfied by the said judgment appealed same to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 16th day of August,
ISSUES FORMULATED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION
“Whether having regard to the Plea Bargain Agreement of the parties filed before the trial Court, the sentence of the Appellant to a maximum term of 3 years imprisonment is according to the law.”
“Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 270 (11) (c) & (15) (b) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Appellant is not entitled to be informed of the heavier sentence of 3 years imprisonment before being sentenced by the trial Court and to thereafter withdraw his plea of guilt.”
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
The Court of Appeal resolved the above issues formulated in favour of the Appellant. In the leading judgment delivered by Justice Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA, the Court held that Plea Bargain is a legal contract, the terms of which must be mutually agreed by the Prosecutor and Defendant duly signed or executed by the parties. Thus when executed or signed by Prosecutor and Defendant, the plea bargain agreement becomes binding on the parties and statutorily enforceable.
The Court emphatically held thus:
“The Learned trial Judge in this case took refuge in the above provisions of section 270(11)(c) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act to heavily punish the Appellant by awarding the maximum term of imprisonment of 3 years prescribed under section 322 of the Penal Code Act. To the Learned trial Judge the sentence agreed upon was ridiculously low compared to the dent such crimes have caused to the image of this country and unsolicited embarrassment it has caused the Nation and its people both within and outside the country.

It is however important to stress that no matter the enormity of disturbance or concern a Court may feel concerning sentence agreed to be imposed upon a Defendant upon plea of guilty and conviction as contained in the plea bargain agreement, the Presiding Judge or Magistrate must act at all times within the confines of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, particularly the procedure laid down and pre-condition put in place to the effect that a Defendant must be informed before a heavier punishment or sentence could be meted upon the Defendant.

The Presiding Justice is under a statutory and constitutional duty to first draw or call attention of the Defendant or his Learned Counsel to the trial Court’s resolve to impose heavier punishment over and above the sentence agreed upon by the parties in the plea bargain agreement. The Defendant must be informed as provided in section 270(11)(c) ACJA supra.

There is nothing in the record of appeal to show that the learned trial Judge complied with section 270 (11)(c) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 which mandatorily enjoined the Presiding Judge or Magistrate to inform the Defendant of such heavier sentence he considers to be appropriate.

The provision is not enacted for the fun of it. It is designed to protect and enable the Defendant to be heard if such heavier punishment will be convenient or alright by him. The condition is also put in place to afford the Defendant the opportunity of changing his plea of guilty or to completely bow out of the plea bargain, bearing in mind that it is the lesser punishment offered by the prosecution for his plea of guilty and conviction that goaded the Defendant to voluntarily agree to plead guilty. That was the understanding that made the parties consummated the plea bargain Agreement.

The trial Judge cannot out of his abhorrence or shock that a one month sentence was agreed between the parties jumped the gun in gross violation of the Defendant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 199 as amended.

The decision to sentence the Defendant to three years heavier punishment as opposed to the Plea Bargain Agreement is clearly a breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.

I fully agree with the submissions of Learned Counsel to the Appellant. The appeal has merit. The two issues distilled by the Appellant are resolved in his favour. The Appellant’s appeal is allowed. The judgement of the lower Court in respect of the sentence (only) of three years imposed on the Appellant is hereby set aside. In its stead I hereby sentence the Appellant to a term of One (1) month imprisonment as agreed by the parties to this appeal in the Plea Bargain Agreement executed or entered into by them on 27th day of June, 2019. The One (1) month imprisonment terms shall run from 27th day of June, 2019.

The Appellant shall be released from Correctional Centre or Prison Custody immediately.”

CONCLUSION
With the above intervention of the Court of Appeal in giving its judicial blessing to the principles guiding Plea Bargain Agreement vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 270 of the ACJA, our corpus juris on the subject of Plea Bargain has been further enriched and fortified. And it is hoped that the similar provisions of Section 270 of the Act would be domesticated in other States of the Federation for speedy administration of criminal justice.
APPEARNACES:

Dr. Kayode Ajulo with Michael Okejimi, Esq. and Zion Zubairu, Esq. for the Appellant
H.M. Mohammed, Esq. for the Respondent