2. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - ARRAIGNMENT: The requirements of a valid arraignment "The requirement of a valid arraignment is that they are mandatory and not directory and must therefore be strictly complied with in all criminal trials. See the cases of Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1038) 30 at 61 and 62; Solola vs. State (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.937) 460 at 482 - 483, Kajubo vs. State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.73) 721, Kalu v. State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.583) 531. The requirements are as follows: (a) the accused must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see the Cause otherwise to order; (b) the charge or information must be read over and explained to the accused to the satisfaction of the court by registrar or other officer of the court; (c) the charge or information must be read and explained to the accused in the language he understands; (d) the accused must be called upon to plead thereto unless there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith. Dibie v. State (supra); Effion v. State (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.373) 507; Adeniyi vs. State (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.730) 375." Per ADAMU,J.C.A. (Pp.17-18,paras.B-A) (...read in context) 3. EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict an accused person "It needs not be direct evidence that the accused person committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime - See Oladotun Ogunbayo vs. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157 at 179, Dagayya v. The State (2006) 7NWLR (Pt.980) 637 at 682." Per ADAMU,J.C.A. (P.10,paras.E-F) (...read in context) 4. EVIDENCE - COMPETENT WITNESS: What the court determines before deeming a child a competent witness "On the procedure that the court must adopt in taking the evidence of a child in criminal proceedings, the Court must to determine whether in the first place she is sufficiently intelligent and whether she could give rational answers to question and secondly whether she know the nature of an oath - See Okoye vs. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.69) 172 and Mbele vs. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 484 and Sakibo vs. State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 399." Per ADAMU,J.C.A. (P.13,paras.C-E) (...read in context)

Select target paragraph3