NAME: Isong Gabriel Isikong MATRIC NUMBER: 17/LAW01/153 COURSE: Criminology COURSE CODE: LPI 304   INTRODUCTION Generallly speaking, the right to life, personal liberty and freedom of movement are amongst the inalienable and fundamental human rights of every citizen which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1999) The fundamental right to freedom can and may only be denied after a declaration of guilt by a law court or after an offender owns up to plead guilty. The application of criminal justice system is an embodiment of diverse institutions respectively engaged in the detection, prosecution and adjudication over offenders culminating to conviction and sentencing.    In all criminal trials, where a conviction is secured, the next required step would be sentencing. Sentencing on its own is a very void field encompassing different approaches and thories .It is an exercise of an optional power that is little guided in a country (such as Nigeria) Hence the power presents sentencers with a wide field and entertains individual tendencies and approaches or solutions to the same problem. What is a Sentence? In law, ‘sentence’ or ‘Judgment’ may connote the decision of courts of criminal jurisdiction formally declaring an accused the legal consequences of guilt to which he has confessed to or which he has been convicted of. Generally therefore, a sentence is the punishment inflicted upon a convict at the end of trial. It is regarded as the judgment that a Court eventually pronounces upon finding the defendant guilty or, punishment which is imposed on a criminal of state. Whereas, sentencing is a post-conviction process of ascertaining and imposing penalties on offenders it is the final stage of the trial process when the Court has found the defendant guilty or the defendant has pleaded guilty, the judge then decides on a sentence appropriate for the offence established, thus the sentence is at the post-conviction stage when the defendant is brought before the Court for the imposition of a penalty. In effect, sentence can only be imposed in the manner prescribed by the law after the establishment of proof of committing an offence beyond reasonable doubt. A judge must not exceed the term prescribed in the statute creating an offence nor must he exceed the quantum prescribed in punishing the offender. In passing a sentence, a judge should be dispassionate in his    decision and in the exercise of his judicial discretion. It is noteworthy that the Federal Capital Territory Judiciary took a leap forward in codifying sentencing guidelines and principles in order to assist judges and Magistrates in the sentencing proceedings after conviction. The lofty initiative is known as the Federal Capital Territory Courts (Sentencing Guidelines) Practice Direction, 2016, The guidelines was enacted by Hon. Justice Ishaq Bello, the Chief Judge of the High Court of the FCT on the 19th October, 2016. Part 1 of the sentencing guidelines resonates the objectives, guiding principles and scope of the Guidelines, Section 1 provides thus: “The objective of this practice direction is to set out the procedure for sentencing of corruption related cases, offences against the person or property, homicide related offences, offences against the state, offences against public order and offences against morality, for the purpose of ensuring uniformity in sentencing to the provision of Sections 416 and 311 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015” The rationales behind the application of the procedural steps prescribed in the guidelines are of immense assistance to judges to operate as parameters or templates that should be taken into consideration during sentencing proceedings. They substantially replicate the considerations prescribed in ACJA for sentencing in respect of the underlisted: a) Corruption and related offences b) Offences against person c) Homicide related offences d) Offences against public order e) against morality and, f) against the state.  Evans having been found guilty of this charges, to sentence Evans proper, theseguidelines have been prescribed by the supreme court to be followed to arrive at a fair, just sentence. This guidelines are designed to show judges the expected sanction for various types of offences. They are intended to l regulate the sentencing discretion of judges and to reduce disparity among sentences given for similar offences. Although statutes provide a variety of sentencing options for particular crimes, guidelines attempt to direct the courts to more specific actions that could be taken. The are 6 various guidelines in sentencing are: 1. Nature of the offence 2. Character / nature of the offender 3. The position of the offender 4. The rampancy of the Offence 5. Statutory Limitation 6. Concurrent and consecutive sentences.   NATURE OF THE OFFENCE The law is expresly clear that a person cannot be convicted of an offence which at the time is not considered as a crime as at the time by any written law and its punishment clearly stated. Adeyeye and others v. State   CHARACTER/NATURE OF THE OFFENDER character evidence or evidence of character as a principle of law is in admissible in law. However when the character of the accused person is in question, the evidence of his character becomes admissible in law. In Adeyeye v. The State supra part of the reasons advanced for the reinstatement of the earlier punishment (18 years) was that the accused person was convicted earlier of an offence. It would appear that the court worked on the assumption that anyone with a previous conviction has lost out in terms of mitigating his sentence. THE POSITION OF THE OFFENDER AMONG HIS CCONFEDERATES 1. When the offender plays a minor role In Enaoro vs The Queen a case of treasonable felony. Enaoro was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by the high court. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to 5 years and said the sentence imposed on the lieutenant should not be more than that of the leader. The leader of the gang should be punished more severely than the lieutenant. This is to affirm that those who instigate should get a higher punishment than those who instigated. In that case the late Awolowo who was the leader got 10 years in jail. The leader is usually the epicenter of activities the moving force and the progenitor of the crime. 2. Playing a major role The offender who has played a major role in an offence  is usually visited with more severe punishment than those inflicted on minor participants the above idea was given judicial recognition in Queen vs Muhammed and others . While the first appellant who was the leader was given a minimum sentence of 8 years the rest were given a maximum of 5 years. THE RAMPANCY OF THE OFFENCE Where the offence is rampant or prevalent the courts have always thought that severity of the punishment will stamp out the crime. In R vs Hassan and Owolabi the courts were adamant on the punishment of forgery and stealing as fraud in the customs was prevalent. So also in state vs Ayegbemi It was also because robbery was rampant that they were sent to 20 years imprisonment. (State v. Another) STATUTORY LIMITATION The two statutory limitations in Nigeria: 1. Statutory Maximum 2. Magisterial jurisdiction limitation wherever there is a statute stipulating the punishment for any offence the court cannot go beyond that punishment. In Queen v. Eyo and others a case of unlawful assembly the high court sentenced them to 5 years imprisonment on appeal the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to 3 years because it was what was stipulated by law (maximum sentence). Also in Mordi vs C.O.P the magistrate sentenced the accused to 2 years then on appeal the high court increased it to 10 years. On appeal the Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the magistrate court.   CONCURRENT AND CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES Whenever a person is found to be guilty of more than 2 offences in Nigeria.  The general rule is that the sentences should run concurrently. The Supreme Court held this position by saying, whatever the offences are similar or of similar nature /disposition they should run concurrently. In Nwankwo vs The State the court held that the sentences should be run concurrently because the offences were similar. Similarly,Evans in the above question his offences are similar and they would be run concurrently. In conclusion , sentencing guidelines aid to promote a fair and just trial of the offender(in this case Evans) and help the presiding judge to arrive at a judgement which is neithet lenient or harsh and is measurable to the offence committed by Evans.