The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) has designed a template for tracking and monitoring corruption cases. Some experts from civil society organisations, anti-graft agencies, Ministry of Justice, the academia and the media met in Abuja to discuss ways to make the exercise effective. JOSEPH JIBUEZE was there.
Several high-profile corruption cases which began over 10 years ago are still pending in courts, making a mockery of the anti-graft crusade.
Towards addressing the problem, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Walter Onnoghen, in his speech at the beginning of the 2017/2018 legal year, announced the setting up of special courts within high courts to handle only corruption cases.
He noted the public concerns about the slow pace of corruption cases in courts.
The CJN directed the heads of courts to compile and forward a comprehensive list of such cases to the National Judicial Council (NJC).
He also asked them to designate one or more courts as special courts for hearing and speedily determining corruption and financial crimes cases.
The CJN, last October 1, set up a 15-man Corruption and Financial Crime Cases Trial Monitoring Committee, and appointed a former President of the Court of Appeal Justice Isa Ayo Salami as its chairman.
The committee’s mandate, among others, is to track the cases and report on delays.
But the committee’s composition was dogged by controversy, culminating in Justice Salami’s rejection of the office nearly a month after he was picked.
Critics faulted the committee, which comprises former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidents and other notable jurists.
Justice Salami has since been replaced by a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Suleiman Galadima.
The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) has offered to support the monitoring process. It would independently monitor high-profile corruption cases, and send its reports to the CJN.
PACAC presented a template for the exercise at a roundtable held at the Transcorp Hilton in Abuja.
Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami (SAN), who was represented at the event, hailed the initiative.
The roundtable was held to develop a template for tracking and monitoring high-profile corruption cases in the designated courts, in accordance with existing laws, Practice Directions and rules of court.
The objective, according to PACAC, is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice sector with regards to the prosecution of high-profile corruption cases through accountability and transparency.
It will involve evaluating the court’s performance and adherence to extant laws and rules, especially the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
The initiative, PACAC said, is in support of CJN’s directive to ensure that corruption cases are timeously concluded.
At the roundtable were officials of anti-corruption agencies, representatives of the Federal Ministry of Justice, civil society organisations, lawyers, development partners, media and members and staff of PACAC.
They included Secretary, National Prosecutions Coordinating Committee (NPCC), Mr Sylvester Imhanobe, who represented Malami, Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) Mr Adetokunbo Mumuni, university don and private prosecutor Mr Wahab Shittu, and Head of Legal and Prosecution at the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Mr Gbolahan Latona.
Also present were Mr Aondona Orti (National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons), Mr Hajarah Yusuf (Ministry of Justice), Mrs Fatima Kere Aliyu (Code of Conduct Bureau), and Mr Elijah Akaakohol (Independent Corruption Practices and other Related Offences Commission).
Mr Okike Aja-Nwachukwu (Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies), Mr Barbara Maigari (Partners for West Africa – Nigeria), Mr Chiamata Anyaegbu (Centre For Socio-Legal Studies), and Mr Femi Oloruntoba (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) were also at the roundtable, among others.
Why PACAC is intervening
PACAC chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) praised the CJN for directing heads of courts to designate at least one court to handle only corruption and financial crime cases.
He said: “We were very happy when the CJN directed that special courts be set up. But we were a little bit downcast when he announced the form of monitoring he wanted. Without criticising them (the committee members) individually – I have nothing against them – but they are too senior. The minute they come into the court to monitor cases, the judge would know who they are, and then the case will not take the natural cause.
“Secondly, will they have time? Thirdly, many of them are actually defending people in the same circumstances over which the court is presiding. Will they be objective? Those are the issues we raised.
“That is why we want to complement what the CJN is doing with our own system of monitoring, which we expect to be more efficient and will produce better result.
“We’re cooperating with the CJN, but we want to refine what he has so kindly provided. That’s the reason we’re here. The template for achieving this end is what has brought us here,” Sagay said.
PACAC Executive Secretary, Prof Bolaji Owasanoye, added that the committee would use less-known “sentinels” to monitor the cases.
“We’ll use sentinels, someone who is there and you don’t even know he’s there. As Prof Sagay hinted, we’re not going to use prominent lawyers or counsel who are very well known already and who, when they come into a court, everything becomes politically correct.
“The job of the sentinel is to help the system by giving us records. We’ll analyse those records, hoping that in the fullness of time, we’ll be able to correct attitudes,” he said.
He also noted that PACAC’s intervention was in aid of the CJN’s efforts.
“We want to help the CJN, formerly being able to give him information about who is ignoring the rules. If the law says that an adjournment should not be more than 15 days, and a judge gives more than 15 days, we want to know who asked for it and why it was given.
“If a Practice Direction says you should assign a case in five days, and it is not assigned in five days, we want to track it,” Owasanoye said.
Owasanoye said the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Kafarati, was considering adopting the FCT High Court Practice Directions on ACJA.
According to him, if that is done, high-profile cases would be more quickly determined at the Federal High Court.
He advocated the enforcement of Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers which provides for sanctions against those who delay cases.
“We want to start deploying those provisions,” he said.
Owasanoye added that PACAC’s monitors would focus only on cases involving political exposed persons (PEPs) and those with huge economic implications.
“It is the high-profile cases that defy all rules. They are the ones giving us problems,” he said.
The PACAC Executive Secretary said the special courts would be automated to speed up the corruption cases.
Imhanobe conveyed Malami’s commendation to PACAC for taking the initiative in organising the roundtable.
He reiterated the importance of monitoring and evaluating ongoing high-profile corruption cases, adding that the NPCC also plays a similar role.
“We must track cases so as to be able to redeem the innovations and the steps to make the system work. The monitoring will also help us to see areas of improvement,” he said.
The template
The working session began with a presentation of the draft Corruption Case Monitoring Template (CCMT) by PACAC’s consultant, Mr. Austin Emumejakpor.
According to him, its aim is to evaluate the roles of stakeholders, including the court, in corruption cases; identify challenges and causes of delays; recommend ways and means to reduce delays; and improve efficiency towards achieving speedy conclusion of trials without compromising fairness.
The template is divided into the following sections: case information, summary of background facts, the charges, prosecution details, defendants’ details, case management details, adjournments, costs, trial in absence, trial, judgment, sentencing, summary of progress and next adjourned date.
Under case information, the monitor is expected to provide information on court location, suit number, and judge.
Under charges, information needed include date a charge was filed, how many days between filing and issuance of hearing notice, number of amendments, whether adjournment was granted due to the amendment, among others. The monitor is also expected to provide details of the prosecution, such as name of prosecuting agency.
Under case management, the sentinel is to report whether case management was held immediately after arraignment as provided under the FCT High Court Practice Direction, and if not why; how many witnesses were agreed, whether defence counsel was of assistance to the court, whether trial time estimate was agreed, among others.
Under adjournments, information required include whether any party was given more than five adjournments in line with Section 396 (4) of the ACJA, and whether the adjournments complied with the time allowed.
In line with Section 396 (6) of the ACJA, the monitor is to ascertain whether cost was awarded against a party seeking a frivolous adjournment.
Under the section on trial, the monitor is to note whether the trial held day to day, whether it was concluded within 180 days, and whether judgment was given within three months.
In monitoring progress of the case, the sentinel is to observe whether the court sat and if not, why; whether there was resistance to an application for an adjournment, and whether the judge was sufficiently in control of the court.
On sentencing, the monitor will note whether the sentencing was done according to law, and what punishment the law provides for.
Emumejakpor identified some causes of delays, including the practice of lawyers holding brief for others, and lack of control by judges.
“Most of the SANs come to court and dictate to judges. You push them (such judges), they fall and roll over. It’s a shame,” he said.
He also noted that the abuse of adjournments was a problem that must be tackled.
According to him, the weapon of wasted cost should be used as a deterrent.
“Such costs should be treated as fines, and people will sit up,” he said.
He believes if counsel are made to personally pay costs, they would sit up.
He noted that in the UK, when such fines are awarded against a lawyer, they are registered in his record at the Bar and could lead to loss of clients, who can access such records.
Emumejakpor said it was wrong for a case to be adjourned because a Chief Judge suddenly asked a judge to represent him at an event.
Not only does it lead to a waste of time, but of resources, as counsel and witnesses may have paid for flight and accommodation, he said.
Emumejakpor added that the default position of all stakeholders should be to comply with the law so that cases can be speedily concluded.
Experts’ inputs
Participants noted that the template was too long and complicated. They said the section on disaggregation should also include socio-economic background.
They suggested that the section on value judgment (with the question: Was the presiding judge sufficiently in control of court?) should be shifted to the end of the template.
They also suggested that the CJN should be briefed regularly on ongoing cases rather than wait till the end of the case.
The experts said there should be formal quarterly reports so that the supervising authorities can take immediate actions.
PACAC was urged to expand the scope of the monitoring. The experts said monitoring should extend post-sentencing.
For instance, a convict who is supposed to be in prison serving his/her term may actually be walking free. So, monitors should check whether the convict is actually serving his term.
It was recommended that state authorities should be included as stakeholders in high-profile corruption cases, while the template should be divided into parts from the commencement of trial to sentencing.
It was further suggested that a whole section should be devoted to case transfer, that there should be different forms – one for during the trial and one after the trial, and that there should be quarterly reporting.
Participants recommended that sentinels should be adequately trained to carry out their fact-finding covertly and thoroughly in order to achieve the best results.
According to them, the template should elicit information about a case, charges, prosecution, defendants, case management, trial, adjournments, costs, trial in absence, judgment, sentencing, overview/conclusion of the case,and post-sentence.
It was also recommended that first part of the template should include name and location of court, including the court number; names of parties, name of judge and registrar, and particulars of the prosecution and defense counsel.
They suggested that the format of the questions should be made objective to reduce personal opinion.
They added that the timeline for transfer of cases and the reasons should be provided in the form, while the time a judge sits should be clearly stated.
The use of colour codes for ease of analysis was also suggested.
Red could mean that a case is deliberately being slowed and the rules and ACJA are not being followed; yellow could mean that the ACJA is being applied in limited form; while green could mean that the law is being strictly followed and the case is moving at the expected pace.
PACAC said the template would be harmonised before it is deployed for the monitoring exercise.
Other observations
EFCC’s Head of Prosecutions, Gbolahan Latona, noted that the anti-graft war would not be won without the cooperation of all stakeholders.
He decried that fact that in a Northern state, the EFCC began the prosecution of suspects for corruption based on complaints by a former governor, only for the new governor, through the Attorney-General, to grant them pardon.
“The trial court, based on the so-called pardon, discharged them and said we no longer had issues before him. We (EFCC) are contesting and appealing the decision,” he said.
According to him, the role of state authorities was critical, especially in high-profile cases. He also wants the issue of post-sentencing monitoring to taken seriously.
Prof Sagay noted that some judges sometimes circumvent the constitutional provision that judgment must be delivered within 90 days of adoption of addresses.
He said such judges would summon counsel as the 90 days are about end, raise some “irrelevant” issues about the case, after which they would adjourn again for another 90 days.
“At the High Court level, the monitors should take note of that. There should be formal report every three months so that the supervising authorises can know what is going on,” he said.
A journalist and judicial correspondent, Mr Ade Adesomoju, pointed out that the practice of Chief Judges transferring cases from one judge to another when such cases are already at an advanced stage should be stopped.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Sarda Suraj, denied that SANs were a cog in the wheel of justice.
“We (SANs) want the country to prosper,” he said.
Lagos lawyer Wahab Shittu noted that monitors should pay close attention to judges’ punctuality, as some of them contribute to delays by sitting late.
