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)