constitutional provisions, should be declared unconstitutional, null and void and must give way to the Section 36 (4) (5) (6) and (9) of the Constitution. For this, he cited the case of OCHALA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 758) 869, 882, C D. In response, it was submitted for the Respondent that where a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars or the offence proved is less than the offence charged, the Courts are empowered by Section 217 and 218 of that Criminal Procedure Code to convict for the lesser offence though not charged and that there is no legal requirement in framing a new charge for the lesser offence as long as the trial Court as in the instant case, follows the due processes laid down. She cited the cases of BABALOLA VS THE STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 115) 264; KADA VS THE STATE (1991) 22 NSCC (PT 11) 592. Learned Counsel disagrees that convicting an accused for a lesser 34 offence without framing a charge violates Section 36 (4) (5) (6) and (9) of the Constitution and infringes on the Appellants right to fair hearing, submitting that the Supreme Court in the case of NWACHUKWU VS THE STATE (1986) 4 SC 378 has decided that a person charged with a greater and gravier offence is deemed to have been given notice of the lesser offence though not charged with the offence. He also referred to OKWUWA VS THE STATE (1964) 1 ALL NMLR 366 by the same Court. It was further submitted that contrary to the submission of the learned Appellants Counsel, Section 216 does not have to be read together with Section 217 of the same Criminal Procedure Code before invoking the Section and that all Appellants argument to the contrary be discountenanced. We were urged to resolve this issue also in favour of the Respondent. The pith of the Appellants contention on this issue is mainly two fold viz: