The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

  • Ex-Appeal Court Justice Ajose-Adeogun dies at 93

    Ex-Appeal Court Justice Ajose-Adeogun dies at 93

    Head of the Ajose-Adeogun family, Justice Olatunji Ajose-Adeogun, is dead.

    He was a retired Justice of the Court of Appeal and the Baba Oba Agba – Ilu of Lagos. (The Kings traditional father & distinguished Elder of Lagos)

    Aged 93, he died after a brief illness. The late Ajose-Adeogun attended the C.M.S Grammar School Lagos, and later proceeded to the University of London to study Law.

    He obtained his LL.B (London) degree from the University in 1952 and qualified as Barrister at law of the Middle Temple Inn, in the same year.

    He returned to Nigeria the same year and joined the firm of Bode Thomas, Rotimi Williams & Fani Kayode.

    After a spell, he was appointed to the newly created post of Secretary/Legal Officer of the then Lagos Executive Development Board now (LSDPC) from 1955 -1961 during which he dealt with Legal & administrative matters connected with the Central Lagos Slum Clearance Scheme, Free-Hold Housing Schemes & New Estate Layouts (Residential and Commercial) before returning to private practice in 1964.

    He was in the same year appointed to the Foreign Service of the Federal Ministry of Justice along with ten other Lawyers to assist the New Republic of Malawi (formerly Nyasaland). The assistance extended to Tanzania and Uganda.

    Justice Olatunji Ajose-Adeogun was eventually appointed by the Malawi Government as it Director of Public Prosecution for four years in that capacity before returning to Nigeria in 1968.

    He joined the Lagos State Ministry of Justice and acted as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions before quitting for private practice.

    He was appointed as a Judge in the Lagos State Judiciary from 1975 to 1985 when he was appointed as a Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal from where he voluntarily retired in 1987.

    Few years after leaving the Judiciary he was appointed by the Federal Government as the Lagos State Public Complaints Commissioner from 1990-1996.  Within the same period, he was in 1992 appointed to serve as Chairman National Election Tribunals in Niger and Enugu State.

    He was appointed the Social Secretary of the Island Club in 1961 and helped in developing Sports including Tombola which were competed for by other clubs including the Lagos Country Club and the Railway Recreation Club.  He was decorated with the highest honour of the Island Club the Knight Commander of the order of the peacock (KCOP) in 2003.

    He was also a deeply religious Christian of the Anglican Communion and was well decorated by the church in recognition of his services to the church.

    He was decorated   with the National Honour of the Commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria OFR in 2006 in recognition of his services to the nation.

    He was also honoured by the Oba of Lagos for his contributions to the development of Lagos State and Isale – Eko in particular by conferring on him the honorary Chieftaincy title of Baba Oba-Agba Ilu of Lagos by Alaiyeluwa Oba Riliwanu Babatunde Osuolale Aremu Akiolu 1 on his 88th birthday anniversary in May, 2012.

    Justice Olatunji Ajose-Adeogun is survived by wife, children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

  • SAN pays tribute to mum

    SAN pays tribute to mum

    Mrs Alewo Ramatu Okutepa, mother of Mr. Jibrin Samuel Okutepa (SAN) is dead. She was 103.

    In a tribute, Okutepa said: “And the matriarch has gone. She was the first daughter and first child of Uwani Atuluku of the Aju-Ocholi Dynasty of Attah Igala.

    “My mother was born an advocate and had answers to every issue you raised. She was named Alewo. She travelled wide in town so the name Alewo. She was a virtuous woman. She was simple and had no known enemies to us the children.

    “Since my dad passed on  on December 8, 1982, my mother had remained in the compound and kept the compound alive. She always said she was watching over the compound of the husband.

    “She called me oko (husband). A husband I was to her. But indeed she was a mother  to me. When I saw the lifeless body of this my ‘wife’ posted to me, I was amazed that the matriarch of the Aju-Ocholi Dynasty has gone.

    “Three days to her death I had spoken to her. She was as jovial as ever and she cracked her usual jokes with me.

    ”Now I am a complete orphan, but thank God, I am not looking for orphanage home to stay. God has done us well.

    “My mother was an epitome of humility. She was kind. She left at the full and ripe  age of 103 years. There can be no better fulfilment than this. She saw us from nothing to something.

    “Of all her children, she suffered for me most. She was in my labour for three excruciating days before she was delivered of me by a traditional midwife attendant. She did not wait to see my 58th birthday which is on January 1.

    “I was planning to celebrate Christmas with her, but now she is no more. Iya go well. Greet Baba for me. Tell Baba my story.

    “You know how you attended my swearing-in  in Abuja on August 26, 2011. Tell my father that ‘Oko’ is now a lawyer and that his blessing on me when I left for Makurdi on  October  1, 1980 has produced good results.

    “God saw me through to the peak of my career. There are many stories to tell Iya,  but you can’t discuss with me again. I covet your longevity, you put the cap on me and the rest.  Good night Iya.”

     

  • Appellant can’t use other court’s decision as appeal ground

    Appellant can’t use other court’s decision as appeal ground

    Lead Judgment Delivered by Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-sodipe, J. c. a.

     

    Concise facts

    This is an appeal against the judgment delivered on 25/4/2016 by the Federal High Court holden in the Owerri Judicial Division.

    The Appellant (then Plaintiff) by way of Originating Summons, commenced the case leading to this appeal against the Respondents (then defendant). Appellant’s grouse was based on the conduct and outcome of the primary elections conducted by the People Democratic Party (PDP)(1st Respondent) for the selection and nomination of a candidate to represent the party in the 2015 National Assembly election for the (Orlu) Senatorial District, Imo State.

    By a motion filed on 21/4/2015, the Respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. On 25/4/2016, the trial Court duly delivered its judgment wherein it upheld the preliminary objection of the 1st and 2nd Defendants therein (now 1st and 2nd Respondents) challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the substantive matter and struck out the Appellant’s suit in limine.

    This decision greatly aggrieved the Appellant and he subsequently lodged this Appeal.

    The Respondents raised a Preliminary Objection in a process titled: “Notice by 1st and 2nd Respondents of Intention to rely on Preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Order 10, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court” wherein it gave the Appellant notice that they shall raise a Preliminary Objection. to the hearing of this appeal and shall seek for the order to dismiss or strike out the appeal in its entirety.

     

    Issue(s) for determination

    The Appellant formulated three issues for the determination of the appeal viz:

    Issue 1: Whether the learned trial judge of the Court below was right when he held that the order for the nullification of primary election is not within the purview and contemplation of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, (sic) 2010 as amended. (GROUNDS 1 and 2).

    Issue 2: Was the learned trial judge right in not nullifying the Imo West Senatorial District primary election of the 1st Respondent conducted on 7/12/2014 and declaring the Appellant the candidate of the 1st Respondent for the Imo West Senatorial District Election held in April, 2015. (GROUND 3).

    Issue 3: Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider the substantive suit after the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ preliminary objection was upheld and does this failure not amount to denial of Appellant’s right to fair hearing. (GROUND 4).

    N:B The Court said “in line with the settled position of the law in respect of Preliminary Objection to an appeal, the Court is duty bound to first resolve the Respondents’ Preliminary Objection as upholding same could result in the non-entertainment of the appeal on the merit.” The case ofGARBA (RTD) V. MOHAMMED (2016) LPELR – 40612 (SC) was called in reference and on this note, the Court dealt with Respondents’ Preliminary Objection first.

     

    Respondent’s argument

     

    The grounds for the objection as set out in the Preliminary Objection are:

    The Appellant has failed to appeal against the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are foundation of the decision; not the ratio decidendi of the decision of the lower Court.

    Grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of appeal do not relate to the decision of the lower Court.

    The Appellant in his brief of argument, argued issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3).

    The Appellant distilled issue 3 from incompetent ground 4 of his grounds of appeal.

    The Appellant is in his brief seeking very different reliefs from what he pleaded and claimed at the lower Court and in his notice of appeal filed on 20th July, 2016.

    The appeal is manifestly incompetent.

    This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”

    While canvassing the first and second legs of the Preliminary Objection together, the Respondents stated the position of the law to be that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law upon which the case was decided. According to him, it is this principle (ratio decidendi) that is binding on the parties that can be the subject of an appeal; not an obiter dictum. The Respondents posited that the holding of the trial Court with respect to their Preliminary Objection and as contained on page 459 of the record of Appeal shows that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are issues relating to the foundation of the decision, i.e. interpretation of Section 87(9) by the trial Court preparatory to making its pronouncement and not the ratio decidendi.

    In arguing the grounds of the Preliminary Objection, Respondents’ counsel, in respect of grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal said the grounds do not arise from live issues at the trial and not any hypothetical assumption by the Appellant. It is the stance of the Respondent that ground 3 which is to the effect that the trial Court failed to nullify the primary election of the 1st Respondent cannot be said to have arisen from the objection before the trial Court and which was the only matter the said Court pronounced on. The Court was consequently urged to strike out ground 3 and issue 2 formulated therefrom for being incompetent. Dwelling on ground 4 which the Respondents said complains about failure of the trial Court to consider the substantive suit, the Respondents submitted that this ground like ground 3 also erroneously presupposes that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but refused to hear and determine the substantive matter. Further, the Respondents pointed out that grounds 3 and 4 are also incompetent for contradicting each other and since the Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate, Respondent urged the Court to strike out grounds 3 and 4.

    On ground 5, the omnibus ground, it is the stance of the Respondent that the said ground is designed to allow a complaint on the evaluation of evidence and it encompasses complaint of improper evaluation of evidence but that as the trial Court did not consider the substantive case, ground 5 cannot be said to have arisen from the judgment of the trial Court and is therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out. It was further pointed out that since the Appellant has not distilled any issue from the said ground, the ground is liable to be struck out since the position of the law is that any ground of appeal upon which no issue has been distilled and upon which no argument has been canvassed is deemed abandoned by an appellant and deserves to be struck out.

    Respondents submitted that the Appellant’s argument in his brief on issue 1 (formulated from competent grounds 1 and 2) together with issue 2 (formulated from incompetent ground 3) should be stuck out in its entirety since Appellant has argued both issue 1 and issue 2 together. It was Respondents’ submission that the position of the law is that where an issue formulated from an incompetent ground of appeal is argued in the brief of argument with those formulated from competent grounds, the entire argument on both issues must be discountenanced. That it is not the duty of the Court to extract arguments in respect of the valid grounds from the invalid ones.

    Also dwelling on issue 3 distilled from what they described as incompetent ground 4, the Respondents equally urged the Court to strike out the said issue as the position of the law is that issues for determination must be distilled from only competent grounds of appeal. It is respondents’ stance that an incompetent ground of appeal cannot give birth to a competent issue for determination, similarly, issues for determination distilled or framed from incompetent grounds of appeal which has been struck out, share the same fate with grounds of appeal which gave rise to them and such issues will be struck out.

    Conclusively, Respondents posited that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal since same is manifestly incompetent and the Court was urged to strike out this appeal in its entirety.

     

    Appellant’s argument

    Appellant adopted and relied on the portion of their reply brief in respect of the Preliminary Objection to the appeal and urged the Court to overrule same and allow the appeal.

    In response to grounds 1 and 2 of the Preliminary Objection, Appellant submitted to the effect that grounds of appeal consist of all the attacks and complaints against the judgment of a trial Court being appealed against and which an appellant relies on in urging an appellate Court to dismiss the judgment of the trial Court. It was canvassed by the Appellant that the grounds of appeal can be on the final decision, the finding of a Court, the reason for the decision, the omission in the judgment, a mistake or error found in the judgment and everything which the appellant feels is the reason why the judgment of the trial Court cannot be allowed to stand. It is Appellant’s contention that as long as the grounds relate or have a link to the issues canvassed before the trial Court or the judgment of the Court, they are competent and shall not be struck out by the Court.

    The Appellant also submitted that a ground of appeal is not rendered incompetent if it is not lifted verbatim ad literatim from the judgment of the Court; or if it is couched in the language of the appellant. That as long as it relates to the decision of the Court or what the Court could have decided or acted upon; it is a valid ground of appeal. Cases considered relevant including that of Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421, were cited in aid of the submissions. Appellant therefore posited that grounds 1 and 2 in the notice of appeal are competent.

    Dwelling specifically on the Respondents attack on his ground 5, i.e. the omnibus ground of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the Respondents have displayed a total misconception of the omnibus ground of appeal. That an omnibus ground of appeal is a general ground which does not attack a specific finding of a trial Court and therefore to that extent needs no issue to be formulated therefrom as it is a ground which is general in terms and cases considered relevant were cited in aid.

    In relation to his argument of issues 1 and 2 together, the Appellant submitted that it was proper to do so.

    In concluding, the Appellant posited that the arguments of the Respondents in respect of his (Appellant’s) grounds of appeal are unduly technical and this Court was urged to discountenance the Preliminary Objection in its entirety as it is quite unmeritorious.

     

    Court’s findings

    The Court observed that though an appeal is not a new action vis-à-vis the one from which it has arisen but its continuation; as it is a complaint against the decision of the trial Court, it must not only be initiated by a notice of appeal embodying the appellant’s grounds of appeal and particulars, but the complaint in the ground or grounds must be relevant to the decision appealed against and not to any matter which is not subject of the appeal. The case of FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD (2010) LPELR – 1283(SC) was cited.

    The Court went on to say that the settled position of the law has always been and still remains that where a notice of appeal is defective in a fundamental manner; such as where all the ground(s) in the notice are not valid or proper ground of appeal in that they are not distilled in relation to the decision appealed against, this Court (notwithstanding any appeal to the interest of the justice in the appeal) is invariably left with no option than to strike out such a notice.

    In determining Respondent’s argument that the grounds of the Notice of appeal are unconnected with the decision of the trial Court appealed against, the Court herein looked into the motion for Preliminary Objection filed by respondents at the trial Court and the Court said that a party cannot disclose in his notice of appeal that he is appealing against a particular decision of the trial Court in a proceeding and go about formulating grounds of appeal in respect of another decision of the Court in the same proceeding.

    The court found that grounds 1 and 2 are glaringly connected with the decision of the said trial Court that is the subject of the instant appeal and therefore competent. However, in respect of grounds 3 to 5 the Court held that they all relate to matters in respect of which the trial court never made pronouncement in that it never considered the substantive case before it on the merit. Consequently, grounds 3-5 are incompetent as it is not related in any way to the decision of the trial Court appealed against and same were struck out.

    In the same vein, the court stated that the issues distilled from the grounds namely, issues 2 distilled from ground three and issue 3 distilled from ground 4 must and are hereby struck out having been distilled from incompetent or invalid grounds of appeal. The cases of ACHONU V. OKUWOBI (2017) LPELR – 42102 (SC); DREXEL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LTD. V. TRANS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD (2008) LPELR – 962(SC), (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 388 (SC); and BALIOL NIGERIA LTD. V. NAVCON NIGERIA LTD (2010) LPELR – 717(SC), (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 619 (SC); were referenced.

    On the propriety or otherwise of the Appellant arguing issue 1 formulated from grounds 1 and 2 (which have been held to be valid grounds) together with issue 2 distilled from ground 3 (which has been struck out for incompetence, the Court upheld Respondents’ argument to the effect that by arguing together the competent issue 1 and incompetent issue 2, it has rendered the arguments on both the issues liable to be discountenanced by the Court. Resultantly, the arguments in relation to Appellant’s issues 1 and 2 were discountenanced.

    Flowing from above, grounds 3 – 5 in the notice of appeal have been struck out; and issues 2 and 3 distilled from grounds 3 and 4, having also been struck out; and arguments on issues 1 and 2 having been discountenanced, the appeal is left bare and without issues for its determination.

     

    Held

    The Preliminary Objection of the Respondents to the appeal was upheld. Consequently, the appeal was struck out for being incompetent. No order was made as to costs.

     

    • Copyright: Lawpavilion(2017) LPELR-42881(CA)
  • Overview of administration of criminal justice law

    Overview of administration of criminal justice law

    Introduction

    Lagos State first introduced the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2007 and the Law was reenacted in 2011 (ACJL) to govern criminal proceedings in Lagos State.

    This Law brought radical changes into the administration of Criminal Justice in Lagos State with several provisions aimed at improving the administration of Criminal Justice in the state.

    In the words of Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), one of the best lawyers around these climes in “Promoting a pace-setting and productive judiciary in Lagos State”, a keynote address the doyen of the bar delivered recently on the occasion of the Opening of the 2017/2018 Legal Year of the Lagos State Judiciary:

    “The ACJL has introduced several innovations aimed at fast-tracking justice delivery, with a concerted effort at the preservation of rights of accused persons. For instance, under Section 9 of the ACJL, the confessional statement of an accused person must be captured via the use of video technology or video recording. In the absence of such video recording, such confession must be in writing, in the presence of the accused person’s legal practitioner. Failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 9 of the ACJL would render any such confession inadmissible in Court. This position has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Zhiya V. People of Lagos State. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Federal Government promptly adapted almost word-for-word, the ACJL, and enacted same as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, although without acknowledging Lagos State as the initiator! A classical display of federal might indeed!!”

    If this is so, it accords with common sense to focus primarily on the Lagos Law and draw comparisons with the federal Act (ACJA) wherever necessary in this treatise and I intend to do that.

     

    Administration of Criminal Justice In Nigeria

    Criminal Law is an aspect of Public Law which is a specialised body of rules on treatment of conduct which the statutes seek to punish, prevent and or control. The state, as representative of society acts positively to ensure enforcement. For this purpose, the state employs the police, judges and magistrates, prosecutors and prisons.

    Even though the Lagos Law did not specifically state the ACJL the purpose stated in ACJA clearly dovetails with the intention of the ACJL. Section 1 of ACJA made it clear that the purpose of the Act is “to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant and the victim”. See the case of Zubairu v. The State (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) at 524 Paras. B; where the Supreme Court noted  “Let me start with the two fold aim of criminal justice: that the guilty shall not escape or the innocent suffer. See Berger v. US 1942 cited in US v. Nixon, President of USA 418 US 683.” – PER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

    The point to note though is that prior to the enactment of these forward looking legislations, the operations of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) had been fraught with numerous challenges. For example issues like coerced and involuntary confessions, court congestion, delays in trial, detention of awaiting trial suspects and accused persons standing trial without legal representation, inefficient and ineffective prosecutors and corruption of the system gave everyone involved a lot of concern.

    Lawyers are also very important in the complicated business of administration of criminal justice as almost everyone in the process were first and foremost Lawyers. It amounts to little that they have become Judges, Magistrates and Prosecutors. The defence counsel is also part of the critical core. The point to take away from this is that if we must have an efficient criminal justice system as the ACJL and ACJA tries to entrench in our polity, the men on the chain all along the line must be men who are willing to birth the dream of the ACJL and ACJA.

     

    Critical provisions of the ACJL/ACJA

    The ACJL deviated from the norm. It made provisions that are alien to the Criminal Procedure Law which hitherto governed the administration of criminal justice in Lagos State. The ACJA which followed later made many similar provisions repealing by the provisions of Section 493 the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Act which hitherto governed criminal prosecutions in the Southern and Northern States respectively.  Any proceeding now commenced under these laws from the date of the commencement of ACJL/ACJA, irrespective of the date of gazetting will be void. See Akingbola v. FRN (2012) 9NWLR (Pt. 1306) 511, C.A. where the Court of Appeal held that any proceeding in Lagos State under the Criminal Procedure Law, repealed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2007 was void.

    The ACJL in section 374 repealed the Criminal Procedure Law long before the Federal Government repealed the equivalent federal law in 2015.

    We will now proceed to briefly consider some of these salient provisions that should aid speedy and efficient administration of criminal justice in Lagos State in particular and Nigeria in general.

     

    Abolition of Arrest in Lieu

    Section 4 of the ACJL provides that “no person shall be arrested in lieu of another person”. This was a regular practice of law enforcement agents akin to ‘hostage taking’ which has been widely condemned but has now been prohibited. No longer can the Police arrest a spouse or other relation to smoke out a suspect.

    Section 7 of ACJA has a similar provision. See African Continental Bank Limited v. Okonkwo (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 48) 197 for a judicial reprimand of the police who arrest others in place of a suspect.

     

    Prohibition of Arrest in Civil and Contractual Cases

    Section 8 (2) of ACJA makes a very laudable provision to the effect that “a suspect shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract”. It has become the past time of many Nigerians with the connivance of law enforcement agents to use their powers to harass citizens where contracts fail or loans remain unpaid. The Court held in A.C (O.A.O) Nig Ltd. v. Umanah (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1344) 323 that “the statutory duties of the police under the Police Act is to maintain peace, law and order in the society. Debt collection or loan recovery is not within the purview of the statutory duty and powers of the police”.

     

    Inventory of Properties

    Section 6 of ACJL makes a further provision to protect the interest of the suspect as it mandates the police upon the arrest of a person to take the inventory of all items or properties recovered from the person arrested or about to be arrested. The police officer making such an inventory must sign same and the person arrested, his legal representative or any other person he chooses shall be given a copy of the inventory.

    Section 10 ACJA went a bit further than the Lagos Law to provide that the suspect must duly sign the inventory. However, where the suspect refuses to sign, it shall not invalidate the inventory. It permits the police to release such property on bond upon request by either the owner of the property or parties having interest in the property. The Court may decide whether to release the property or any portion of the property in the interest of justice to the safe custody of the owner or person having interest in the property.

    This provision is aimed at protecting the property rights of suspects and to make the police or any other law enforcement agency making the arrest transparent and accountable.

     

    The Duty of the Police to Ensure Video Recording of Confessional Statements

    In a radical provision to combat the often reported menace and human rights abuse whereby the police force confessions and torture suspects to confess to crimes they probably did not commit which may lead to conviction and time in jail as the best evidence in criminal proceedings especially in our clime where forensic evidence may not be available is the confessional statements, the Law placed a onerous duty on the police to ensure video recording of confessional statements.

    Section 9 (3) of the ACJL provides that “where any person who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police shall ensure that the making and taking of such statement is recorded on video and the said recording and copies thereof may be produced at the trial provided that in the absence of video facility, the said statement shall be in writing in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice”.

    One can only begin to appreciate the great good this provision has done if one has ever been involved in criminal prosecutions where most of the evidence you have is the confessional statement of an accused person who continues to maintain that the statement was not voluntary and yet you have the police who swear that the suspect made a voluntary statement. Trial within trial is not really a pleasant affair for the defence counsel.

    The eminent justice of the Supreme Court Rhodes – Vivour, JSC in Owhoruke v. COP 15 NWLR (Pt. 1483) 557 at 570 empathized with defendants and the defence counsel thus: “it must be noted that most crimes are committed by people with little or no education, consequently they are easily led along by the investigating Police Officer to write incriminating statements which legal minds find almost impossible to unravel and resolve. Confessional statements are most times beaten out of suspects, and the courts usually admit such statements as counsel and the accused are unable to prove that the statement was not made voluntarily. A fair trial presupposes that police investigation of the crime for which the accused person stands trial was transparent. In that regard it is time for safeguards to be put in place to guarantee transparency. It is seriously recommended that confessional statements should only be taken from suspect if, and only if his counsel is present, or in the presence of a legal practitioner. Where this is not done such a confessional statement should be rejected by the court”.

    ACJA made a similar provision in Section 15 (4) as follows “where a suspect who is arrested with or without warrant volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of the statement shall be in writing and may be recorded electronically on a retrieval video compact disc or such other audio visual means.

    Note though that Section 8 (1) ACJA already provides that “a suspect shall be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to the dignity of his person and not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.

    It does appear that compared to the provisions of the Lagos Law, ACJA does not make electronic visual recording mandatory. This is why Section 15 (5) is a provision that waters down Section 15 (4) of ACJA. It provides, “notwithstanding the provision of Subsection (4) of this section, an oral confession of arrested suspect shall be admissible in evidence”.

    At the time ACJL came into force in Lagos State, many thought this provision offended the rules of evidence over which only the federal legislature superintends as it was clearly incongruous with the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act. Thankfully the Federal legislature in enacting ACJA validated the forward looking and pragmatic initiative of Lagos State with ACJL in line with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in 2010 when it became an issue of whether a lacuna in the Evidence Act can be positively resolved by a judicial pronouncement when it held in FRN v. Fani Kayode (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) 481 at 492  “while judges must refrain from attempting to make laws from the bench, they must not shy away from adopting a proactive approach to the interpretation of the law. Judicial officers must not place on themselves, disabilities not imposed by the law.”

  • Lawyer sues Lagos CJ, others for ‘forcing’ court users to buy seal

    A lawyer, Mr Tope Alabi, has sued Lagos  State Chief Judge Lagos, Justice Opeyemi Oke, over the sale of seals in the High Court and Magistrate Court registries.

    In his originating summons, he is seeking a declaration that the introduction and sale of seals and non-acceptance of his processes for filing on the basis that there were no seals on them is illegal and unconstitutional.

    He filed the suit at the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja.

    The Chief Registrar, the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission, Lagos State Judiciary, Attorney-General of Lagos and Justice Oke are the defendants.

    Alabi said the court officials’ insistence that he must buy the seal and attach it to his supporting affidavits amounts to denying him and his clients access to justice.

    He is praying for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from compelling litigants to purchase the seal when filing cases, processes or deposing to affidavits.

    He also wants the court to perpetually restrain the defendants or their agents from further producing or supplying the seals.

    The lawyer urged the court to determine whether, based on its rules and the 1999 Constitution, its officials can validly force litigants to buy the seals for N250 before they can file documents in court.

    Alabi said in all the laws, statutes and rules governing the court’s affairs, there was no legal basis for imposing the sale of the seals on court users.

    “The defendants cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand,” he said in his written address.

    Alabi also filed a motion ex-parte praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from compelling him and other litigants to purchase seals.

    In a supporting affidavit which he personally deposed to, Alabi said he was at the court’s Lagos division on October 31 to file a motion for change of counsel.

    In addition to the regular charges, he said he was charged additional N250 for a seal affixed to his affidavit in support of the motion. He said he complained to the Assistant Chief Registrar.

    “He informed me that the order was from above, and that it was beyond him. I was also at the Lagos Judicial division of the High Court of Lagos State on the 6th day of November, 2017 for filing of affidavit of service.

    “The court officials, precisely the cashiers, denied me filing on ground that I did not give them the sum of N250 for the seal,” he said.

    Alabi said he complied with the pre-action requirements, adding that “it is in the interest of justice to restrain the defendants from compelling the claimant or any legal practitioner or litigant to purchase the seals.”

    No date has been fixed for hearing.

     

  • Foundation, lawyers present wheel chair, car to colleague

    Foundation, lawyers present wheel chair, car to colleague

    Ubani Foundation and a group of lawyers from the Ikeja branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), has presented a motorised wheelchair and a car to a physically challenged lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Idowu.

    Ubani, NBA Second Vice-President and Chairman of the NBA Welfare Committee said: “A lawyer brought the plight of Mr. Bamidele Idowu to my attention and I promised to help out.

    “When my primary constituency failed, I ran back to some of my colleagues who generously contributed initially for a motorised wheel chair, but fate changed the situation completely and we went for a car also in addition to a wheel chair.

    “Ubani foundation sowed the initial seed and so many other lawyer colleagues from Ikeja keyed in and that brought us this success story today.

    “I thank over 42 other lawyers who sowed this seed, most of them do not know want their names disclosed.  One Senior advocate of Nigeria who is a member of this branch gave us N100,000.00, the second highest donor after Ubani Foundation.

    “Others gave N50, 000.00 and several others N10, 000.00 and N5, 000.00 according to their economic strengths.”

    A director at the Citizens Right Centre of the State Ministry of Justice, Mrs. O.I. Adesina, who represented Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, praised Uani Foundation and the lawyers for their humanitarian gesture.

    She promised to draw the government’s attention Ubanui’s request that Idowu be offered employment in the Ministry of Justice

    Idowu expressed appreciation to his colleagues for the honour done him.

    “I feel great. My colleagues and the NBA have solved the problems of mobility for me. My greatest challenge now is how to have and maintain a regular income to sustain myself.

    “This will either come through employment or setting up a law office. I do not have a law office; I just do some charge and bail at Ikeja, Lagos to make ends meet.

    “I am optimistic as Mrs. Adeniji promised to mention my case to Governor  Ambode,” Idowu said.

  • Firms sue Hyundai over ‘defective automobile’

    Firms sue Hyundai over ‘defective automobile’

    Two companies, Media Seal Limited (formerly Starcom Media Services Limited) and Bytesize Limited, have sued Hyundai Motors Nigeria Limited at the Lagos High Court  in Ikeja for allegedly selling defective automobile to them.

    Along with Mr. Ayo Oluwatosin, they are seeking a declaration that a Hyundai Grand Santa Fe GLS 3.3L, with Chassis number: KMHSN81EDFU097184 and Engine No: G6DFEA34538 sold to them by Hyundai Motors is not fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

    They are also praying the court for an order that Hyundai Motors refunds N15,595,000 being the amount paid for the car.

    The claimants are also praying for an order that they be paid N50million for alleged breach of contract, and another N100million as general damages.

    The claimants sough an order compelling the defendant to pay 15 per cent interest to the sums from the day the suit was filed till judgment is given, and 25 per cent interest from the day judgment is given till the sum is liquidated.

    In their statement of claim filed by their counsel, Wale Ogunade, the claimants said they bought four vehicles from Hyundai on June 1, 2016. The defective car, they said, was bought on October 5, 2016.

    The claimants said the cars were delivered to them on October 6 and June 2, 2016.

    According to them, when the vehicle was driven between October 21 and 26, 2016, they discovered that it had a brake problem, which they brought to Hyundai Motors’ attention.

    Oluwatosin said he met with the company’s representatives, where Hyundai Motors allegedly demanded N4million to replace the defective car.

    Hyundai Motors denied culpability in the transaction. It claimed that it conducted extensive pre-delivery test on every component parts of the vehicles.

    The defendant said all the vehicles were found to be in perfect condition before they were handed over to customers.

  • Abubakar advocates legal backing for traditional rulers

    BAUCHI  State Governor Mohammed Abubakar has called for a better recogntion of the role of tradition rulers in the society through constitutional recognition.

    He reiterated his administration’s support for traditional institutions.

    He spoke when he received the new Emir of Katagum, Alhaji Umar Muhammad Kabir Umar.

    He said all support would be given to the Emir and Emirate, stressing that traditional institutions were integral to state building.

    Abubakar said the new Emir of Katagum was Allah’s choice, explaining that Allah only used him in selecting and appointing the new Emir to succeed his late father.

    The Governor recalled that when he kick-started his campaign in Azare town of Katagum Local Government Area, he vowed to follow the footsteps of the former Governor of Bauchi State, the Alhaji Tatari Ali, known to be non-discriminatory.

    Abubakar expressed his gratitude to the Emir and the people of Katagum Emirate for their unwavering support, and expressed satisfaction in the kind of people-oriented programs the Emir had already embarked upon.

    The Emir thanked Allah for making it possible for him to succeed his father and thanked Abubakar for installing him as the 12th Emir of Katagum.

    The Emir pledged his allegiance to Abubakar and his administration.

    He praised the Governor for the projects taking place in Katagum, recalling that one of the first contracts awarded by the Governor was that of the now famous Misau – Udubo – Gamawa road.

    Meanwhile, Governor Abubakar has approved the appointment of Dr. Auwal Ibrahim Amba as the Provost A.D Rufa’i College for Legal and Islamic Studies Misau in Bauchi State.

    This was contained in a statement signed by the College Registrar, Hamma Bashar.

    Other officers appointed included; Mallam Garba Musa (Registrar) and Mallam Muhammad Dahiru Ibrahim (Bursar).

    The tenure of the Librarian, Mallam Lamido bdullahi was renewed.

  • Frustrated litigants groan over endless appeals

    For many litigants, the appellate courts have become a source of frustration and lamentation. Besides the inefficiency of the system which is bogged down by a tedious process, appeals, though constitutional rights, are deployed by unscrupulous litigants to frustrate other parties. All manner of issues go on appeal, overwhelming the appellate courts. With the process fraught with corruption and inefficiency, the challenges appear to have defied solution. Legal experts, however, have suggested ways out, writes JOSEPH JIBUEZE.

     

    A former Akwa Ibom State Commissioner for Youth and Sports, Imo Udo, will not forget his experience at the Supreme Court in a hurry. Either through deliberate frustration or act of sabotage, he hit a brick wall.

    Udo ran against Mr Godswill Akpabio during the 2011 governorship primaries under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Akpabio won.

    Udo claimed that Akpabio was not qualified to contest the primary election because he allegedly did not pay tax for the three previous years in line with PDP’s guideline.

    While Udo was slogging it out in court, Akpabio was sworn in as governor. The case was still pending in court as Akpabio won a second term.

    Udo’s case got to the Supreme Court but was never heard. When it eventually came up, it was struck out.

    The case began when Udo sued Akpabio at the Federal High Court, claiming that the defendant did not show proof of tax payment.

    He argued that there was no evidence that Akpabio was exempted from the payment of personal income tax.

    The court, in its judgment, held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the case.

    Dissatisfied, Udo appealed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar. The appellate court held that for his complaint to be justiceable, it ought to have occurred the day the primary election was held.

    Udo took his case to the Supreme Court on January 24, 2014, praying the court to disqualify Akpabio and to overturn the Court of Appeal judgment.

    But, the case was not listed for hearing until about a year later. This was despite several requests by Udo’s lawyer that it be listed.

    It took a formal complaint to the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mariam Muktar, for Udo’s case to be listed.

    Justice Muktar directed Udo to file an application for accelerated hearing.

    Udo said the CJN’s directive got to his lawyer 36 days after it was dispatched by the Head of Litigation.

    When the case came up for the first time on December 17, 2014, the panel of justices further adjourned it till April 20, 2015 for hearing.

    Worried that Akpabio’s tenure would soon expire, he sought the intervention of the new CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, for an earlier date, but the CJN said he could not interfere.

    Udo said he was shocked when on April 20, 2015, an entirely new panel was constituted to consider the case even when there was no petition against the earlier panel handling it.

    The new panel, rather than go on with the hearing, dismissed the appeal suo moto (without prompting).

    Udo said the justices’ excuse was that they “did not have time to write judgment on the case.”

    “The panel rose and I went back home unheard and my appeal unattended to even though it was ripe for hearing and determination by the Supreme Court for over a year and six months before the 20th of April 2015,” Udo lamented.

    In an affidavit in verification of his petition, Udo said his lawyer, Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), was asked to withdraw the case or it would be struck out.

    He wondered why the accelerated hearing notice was not dispatched to him on time; and why a new panel was constituted to hear the case when there was no petition or complaint against the first panel.

    “Was the Supreme Court playing pranks on me when on the 17th day of December 2014, the court pleaded with my counsel to accept a four-month adjournment on the grounds that the case would be determined on the next adjourned date?

    “If the reason for dismissing my case was truly lack of time to do the work they are paid to do, why did the same court, on the 27th day of April and the 26th day of May of the same year (more than a month later) consider other political matters and gave judgment on them?” Udo wondered.

    His battle to have the case re-listed and heard on merit is still ongoing.

    Udo could consider himself fortunate that his case was eventually listed, although it took a petition to the CJN for an action to be taken.

    But it was struck out for not justifiable reason.

    Endless appeals

    Udo’s experience captures what many litigants through at the appellate courts where cases last as long as 10 years or more.

    Mr Okon Johnson, now in his 70s, and about 859 others were engaged as security personnel sometime in 1990 by Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited.

    In 2000, a dispute arose about their status. Mobil claimed it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not full staff.

    The workers sued at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The court entered judgment in their favour in 2006.

    Mobil appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar.

    In a unanimous judgment on May 21, 2009, the Appeal Court held, among others, that the Nigerians were Mobil’s employees.

    Mobil appealed to the Supreme Court in 2010. Although many of the affected workers have died, the appeal is still pending at the Supreme Court, seven years later.

    Alhaji Garba Mohammed Gadi was the Deputy Governor of Bauchi State. He was impeached in controversial circumstances in August 2009. He challenged his impeachment up to the Supreme Court.

    His appeal was filed on October 22, 2013. Unfortunately, the appeal was not heard until Alhaji Gadi died on August 1, this year.

    Before tragedy struck, Dr. Mattias Oko Offoboche’s lawyers filed the appellant’s brief on October 15, 2010 in the appeal numbered SC. 224/2009. The respondents did not file any brief. The appellant died in 2015, about six years after lodging the appeal. It was never heard.

    A leading Lagos law firm, Strachan Partners, in a report titled: effect of appeals on course of trials, notes that the average lifespan of cases in Nigerian courts last no fewer than 15 years.

    According the firm, appeals take over 60 per cent of the time.

    It pointed out that cases take over 15 years at the appellate courts alone. For instance, the case of Ariori vs Elemo (1983; 1 SC 13) took about 23 years to be resolved.

    The case of Union Bank Nigeria Plc vs Ayodare and Sons (Nig) Limited was instituted at the High Court in 1989.

    After less than five years, it went on appeal. It was finally decided by the Supreme Court in 2007. Altogether, the case took 18 years to be resolved.

    A trial court gave judgment in the case of Adisa vs Oyinwola in 1985. It went on appeal the same year. It was not determined by the Supreme Court until year 2000. The appeal lasted for 15 years from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

    On December 12, 2006, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) issued an interim investigative report and prepared a draft of 223 charges against former Rivers State Governor Dr Peter Odili, accusing him of embezzling N100 billion.

    On January 31, and February 26, 2007, at the twilight of his tenure, Odili approached two courts in the state capital where he filed two cases through his Attorney-General, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia (SAN).

    The case before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court also went into full trial and in a judgment delivered on March 20, 2007, Justice Buba upheld the plaintiff’s prayers. However, two months after leaving office, Odili again returned to Justice Buba’s court where he filed a suit in his personal capacity against the Attorney-General of the Federation and EFCC.

    The judge granted his prayers and restrained the EFCC from arresting, detaining, or prosecuting him. It also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from using its interim report, which the court had earlier declared null and void.

    EFCC appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge failed to distinguish between the period of constitutional immunity as a sitting governor and when he was out of office.

    The commission challenged the court’s position that everything Odili did while in office, including alleged acts of corruption was done in official capacity.

    The appeal is still pending.

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) said it was strange that the appeal was yet to be listed for hearing nearly 10 years after it was filed.

    “The case was filed at the Court of Appeal. The file number is there. For some strange reason, the Court of Appeal would not list it for hearing.

    “The whole thing is so obscured that it’s left the radar of cases. Each time the EFCC applies to find state of the case, we are frustrated,” Sagay said.

    The case of former governors

    It took nearly 10 years to determine the interlocutory appeals filed by some former governors against their trial. While the Supreme Court has decided some of the cases and trial resumed, others are pending. The former governors’ case show how slow the appellate process can be.

    Former Abia State governor Orji Kalu was charged with N3.2billion fraud soon after leaving office in 2007. He filed an interlocutory appeal. It took about nine years for the appellate courts to decide the case. Kalu was re-arraigned on September 27, 2016, nine years after he was first arraigned.

    Former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja was also first arraigned in 2007 on allegations of converting N4.7billion from the state. He obtained a stay of proceedings after filing an interlocutory appeal. It took over seven years before the Supreme Court decided the appeal. Ladoja was re-arraigned on December 14, 2016, eight years after he was first arraigned.

    The cases of other former governors are still pending on appeal. For instance, the EFCC accused former Oyo State Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala of conspiracy and misappropriation of N11.5billion.

    Four years ago, a High Court in Oyo State adjourned the case indefinitely after Alao-Akala’s lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), informed the court about a pending appeal to challenge the lower court’s December 12, 2012 ruling that Alao-Akala had a case to answer.

    The interlocutory appeal is still pending at the Supreme Court.

    Similarly, the case against former Inspector-General of Police Sunday Ehindero is also pending. He was accused of using position to confer corrupt advantage on himself. He was charged in 2012.

    His appeal challenging the lower court’s ruling on a no-case submission was dismissed by at the Court of Appeal. Ehindero further appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal is still pending.

    The overall effect is delays that the Judiciary is fast losing its fear factor.

    Ikeja Branch chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Mr Adesina Ogunlana said because they know there will be virtually no end to litigation, aggrieved persons are no longer keen to seek remedies in court.

    They would rather take laws into their own hands or leave matters to God, he said.

    Those who act with impunity are also not bordered about being sued. They know that after a minimum of five years deciding a case at the lowers courts, it would take even longer at the appellate courts, by which time an already done deed had become irreparably damaged.

    “It is a very sad commentary on the judicial system for people to tell you: ‘You can go to court’. They are not afraid of the courts because they know that the cases would never end. But they will never tell you to go to the press,” Ogunlana said, underscoring the fact the court of public opinion had become more preferable to the court of law.

     

    A presidential aide’s experience

    Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla lamented that appeals are bogged down by “the inefficiencies and outright corrupt practices” of court officials.

    He alleged that court workers have turned the process into money making opportunities by attending to case files only when their palms have been greased.

    “To obtain a court ruling, you must pay through your nose; to obtain a certified true copy of a judgment, you must pay through the nose; to cause a court bailiff to serve a court process, you must pay through your nose. To get a case to be assigned after filing, you must pay through your nose.

    “Even in the Supreme Court, to get an appeal assigned for hearing, you must pay through your nose. The registries in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively are a study in chaos, disorderliness and confusion.

    “The court has refused to embrace Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to organise its registry in line with international best practices,” Obono-Obla said.

    Following Obono-Obla’s criticism of the inefficiency in the appellate process, the Supreme Court’s Chief Registrar, Mrs. Hadizatu Mustapha, wrote him on September 7.

    “His Lordship, the CJN, is desirous to make a positive change in the judiciary, hence he has requested that you please oblige the Honourable Court with details of all your pending or delayed appeals filed at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court since 2007 to enable his office take the necessary steps to ensure redress,” Mustapha wrote.

    Obono-Obla obliged. In his September 12 response, he listed seven cases that had been hanging at the Supreme Court for near 10 years, and six which had been pending at the Court of Appeal.

    According to him, a notice of appeal in Chief Obono Egom & 7 Ors. Vs. Eno Omini Eno & Anor (numbered SC. 220/2009) was filed on June 1, 2006. Appellants’ brief was filed on August 6, 2009. Respondents’ brief was filed on November 30, 2009. Appellants’ reply brief was filed on January 29, 2010.

    Records from the lower court were transmitted and briefs settled, yet no date for hearing has been fixed for seven years.

    The appeal in Chief Akinwunmi Ricketts Vs. Cross River Property & Investment Ltd & Anor (SC. 93/2008), was filed on September 28, 2007. Appellant’s reply brief was filed on January 28, 2009. Briefed were settled, but no date has been given for hearing since 2009. This year makes it eight years.

    For the appeal in Inspector Gabriel, Commissioner of Police Monitoring Unit, Lagos vs. Evangelist Mrs. Helen Ukpabio & 3 Ors (SC. 290/2008), filed on May 11, 2007, Obono-Obla said the respondents’ brief was filed on January 28, 2009.

    “Records have been transmitted and briefs settled. It is now eight years since the appeal became ripe for hearing. No date for hearing,” he said.

    An appeal in a suit Obono-Obla filed in his personal capacity against the Federal Road Safety Commission (SC. 117/2010) is yet to get a date for hearing five years after the appellant’s reply brief was filed on March 7, 2012.

    The case of Garba Mohammed Gadi vs. the Speaker, Bauchi State House of Assembly & 14 Ors (SC.720/2013) had a sad ending. The notice of appeal was filed on October 22, 2013. Only two of the respondents out of 14 filed their briefs in 2015.

    Due to attendant delays, the case was never heard. A hearing date was eventually fixed for January 16, 2018. Sadly, the appellant died on August 1.

    “A letter of death/notice of discontinuance of the appeal was served on the registry of the Supreme Court on 9th August, 2017,” Obono-Obla said.

    The Special Assistant on Prosecution also listed his cases yet to be heard at the Court of Appeal.

    They include an appeal in Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority vs. Justina Oka Obono-Obla & Ors (CA/PH/767/2013). The respondents’ brief of argument was filed on April 14, 2014. Records have been transmitted, briefs settled. No date has been given since 2014.

    His other cases awaiting hearing are Dr. Kevin Ngwang Gunme & 7 Ors. Vs. Ag Federation (CA/A/69/2014), in which appellant’s brief of argument was filed on March 13, 2014; Macgregor Eteng Omini vs. Yakurr LGA (CA/14/2011), with records of appeal transmitted since June 25, 2012; and Okorn Onun Arikpo vs. Onun Onun Arikpo & Ors (CA/C/183/2014), in which respondents’ brief of argument was filed on August 5, 2014.

    The rest are Chief Unoh A. Unoh & Ors. vs Nigerian Prison Service & Anor (CA/C/182/2013), in which second respondent filed brief of argument on June 6, 2014, and Chief Donatus Ofem Ibor vs Obol Onen David, numbered CA/C/101/2011.

     

    ‘Corruption practices killing system’

    In his letter to the CJN, Obono-Obla alleged that some of the appeals were not listed for hearing because the officials would not list them unless they were bribed.

    “I would like it on record that the statement credited to me about the inefficiency and corrupt practices prevalent in the Registry of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in Nigeria is not calculated to bring ridicule to the Judiciary or our esteemed legal profession, but to make it better than it currently is.

    “It is, therefore, not all about my appeals pending before these appellate courts alone, but about the generality of appeals filed by litigants in these appellate courts.

    “The appeals by omissions or commissions become bogged down by the inefficiencies and outright corrupt practices I have identified.

    “The registries of the appellate courts have failed to map out strategies that will ensure the efficient disposal of appeals which are ripe for hearing,” he said.

    Obono-Obla said it had become the “norm” for some judicial staff to demand money before attending to pending files.

    His words: “It has rather become a lucrative business for some judicial staff to exploit the situation to their benefit by listing only appeals of legal practitioners/litigants who can make monetary or other pecuniary gifts to them to ensure their appellate files are brought out from the archives and listed for hearing.

    “This over time has become the silent norm, which, if unchecked, will have dangerous consequences.”

    Other lawyers who spoke to our correspondent in confidence confirmed the allegations. However, many are afraid of speaking out for fear of being victimised.

    “The judiciary never forgets,” said a lawyer on why his colleagues are afraid to speak out against such acts of corruption.

    Prof Sagay agreed with Obono-Obla. “He’s very right. The cases before the Supreme Court are a cause of major frustration,” he said.

    The eminent professor of law recalled that a court official once told him that his appeal would be delayed for several years.

    “I have a private case which has been sitting there. The registrar told us: ‘For the next five years, you won’t hear anything’. So, it’s a very major problem,” Prof Sagay said.

     

    Are the appellate courts overstretched?

    According to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CNJ) Justice Walter Onnoghen, the Supreme Court considered a total of 1,362 matters, comprising motions, appeals and judgments in the 2016/2017 legal year.

    It heard 82 political, 675 civil and 208 criminal motions, totaling 965.

    The court also considered a total of 394 appeals comprising 96 political matters, 174 civil cases, and 124 criminal matters.

    In total, the Supreme Court delivered 243 judgments in the last legal year. To the CJN, the numbers are impressive.

    “This is by all means an impressive report considering the persistent and increasing volume of cases that continue to come before this Court,” he said.

    There is an increase in the number of cases that go to the Supreme Court.

    In the 2010-2011 Legal Year, the Supreme Court disposed of only 163 cases, consisting of 78 judgments and 85 motions.

    However, the then CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, said 1,149 civil appeals, 58 criminal appeals and 177 motions were pending.

    According to him, even if there was a full constitutional complement of 21 Justices of the Supreme Court, it would take several years before the backlog would be cleared.

    Presently, the Supreme Court is made up of the CJN and 16 other Justices.

    The second most senior Justice of the Supreme Court, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, is of the view that Nigeria’s Supreme Court is overworked.

    He spoke while presiding over a panel of justices that delivered 11 judgments in a day, including an appeal on a dangerous driving case.

    His words: “Every Friday you find out that the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivers up to 10 judgments. There was a month where the Supreme Court delivered about 32 judgments. The work is too much. There is urgent need for a solution to reduce the work load.

    “Lawyers will have something to say to the legislature to stop this kind of a thing. There is no Supreme Court in the world that works as the Nigerian SC works.

    “Traffic jam cases! Let it (Supreme Court) be on policy issues and on law only, but if a judge coughs and someone does not like that cough, the matter goes to the Supreme Court.

    “Landlord and tenant cases go to the Supreme Court, which could be determined by magistrate courts. The work is too much; we better start thinking of what to do,” Justice Muhammad said in the open court.

    ‘Nigeria’s global standing’

    The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” implies that if legal redress is not forthcoming within a specified period, it has the same effect as having no redress at all. If justice is not dispensed promptly, it is tantamount to lack of justice.

    Issues of delays have negatively affected Nigeria’s global ratings. Nigeria ranked 0.44 in the 2016 Rule of Law Index published by the World Justice Project.

    Ghana ranked higher (0.54) than Nigeria. Zambia ranked 0.48, while South Africa ranked 0.59.

    The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Report for 2016 indicates that Nigeria ranked 139 among 190 countries in the enforcement of contracts.

    The ranking focuses mainly on the cost and time of resolution of commercial disputes through the courts.

    ‘Finding solutions’

    A major attempt was made in 2011 to address the problem of appellate court delays when Justice Mustadpher constituted a 29-man committee headed by one of his predecessors, Justice Mohammed Uwais.

    The committee made far-reaching recommendations, which formed a 52-point Judicial Reform Bill submitted to the National Assembly in July 2012.

    A core proposition in the Bill was to abolish the constitutional provision that appeal was of right, and that any aggrieved litigant could appeal a decision of the lower courts.

    By the proposal, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was to be altered with the provision that appeals from the Court of Appeal, on interlocutory decisions and other matters, should only be by leave of the Supreme Court.

    This proposal was intended, among others, to allow the Supreme Court to control the appeal process.

    Unfortunately, not only was the Bill not passed, most of the other recommendations by the Uwais committee are yet to be implemented.

    ‘Limit what goes on appeal’

    A former Justice of the Supreme Court, Emmanuel Ayoola, expressed regrets that 90 per cent of the appeals at the Supreme Court are on technicalities rather than substantive issues of law.

    This trend, he said, was a proof that the country’s jurisprudence was on a progressive decline.

    He said: “When you get to the Court of Appeal, when you get to the Supreme Court and when you look at the index of the law reports, you’d find that 90 per cent of reported cases coming before our highest court are all about technicalities and procedure; nothing, absolutely nothing about substantive law.”

    To him, there is the need to limit what goes to the Supreme Court.

    Prof Sagay believes not every issue should be appealable. This, he said, would help decongest the appellate courts.

    “I don’t blame the Supreme Court too much because under our present procedural system, anything goes to the Supreme Court, anything – interlocutory matters that will still come back to the High Court, which should have been disposed of finally. So, they’re overloaded.

    “We need to come together, the CJN and others, first to amend the Constitution, so that we totally eliminate interlocutory matters.

    “Secondly, there is no need for commercial cases to go to the Supreme Court. They can be resolved at the Court of Appeal level where you have three justices.

    “Leave constitutional cases, criminal cases, things concerning administration of government, human rights – just about five things – for the Supreme Court,” Sagay said.

    Legal experts proffer solutions

    Other senior lawyers have also suggested ways out of delays at the appellate courts.

    They include three former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidents, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Mr Joseph Daudu (SAN).

    Others are renowned legal author and constitutional lawyer Sebatine Hon (SAN), Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), Mr Mike Igbokwe (SAN), Mr Ahmed Raji (SAN), Mr George M. Oguntade (SAN), Mr Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) and Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa.

    Executive Director of Nigerian judicial watchdog, the Access to Justice, Mr Joseph Otteh, also weighed in with solutions.

    Among others, they recommended a constitutional amendment to restrict what goes on appeal, the need to impose severe sanctions to discourage frivolous appeals, creation of regional Supreme Courts, better court and case management, and less reliance on technical justice.

    Wanted: Regional Supreme Courts

    Chief Olanipekun thinks that the ideal and constitutional arrangement in a federal set up is for each state or zone to have its Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

    That way, the Federal Court of Appeal would only take care of appeals emanating from the Federal High Courts, and only in respect of matters relating to federal subjects.

    State appellate courts, he said, would deal directly with appeals from state high courts, and over subjects peculiar to the state or zones, which they are naturally familiar with.

    Olanipekun said: “We tend to be deceiving ourselves by expecting a Justice of the Court of Appeal, who, as a practicing lawyer or magistrate, was restricted to, say, the Northeast, to, by the magical wand of being appointed a Justice of the Court of Appeal, master and become an expert in the land tenure system, chieftaincy nuances, native law and custom, etc, of either the Southwest or Southeast zone, and start dishing out judgments on these very fundamental matters.

    “He has to start learning, even as a Justice of the Court of Appeal, if we want to be sincere with ourselves.

    “Some years back, Justice Musdapher set up a high powered committee to look into ways and manners of resuscitating and revamping the administration of justice in Nigeria.

    “I served on the committee and we came up with a lot of recommendations, some of which would trigger constitutional amendments.

    “We have to, as a matter of urgency, take the document from the Nigerian proverbial dust bin, and implement the recommendations.

    “Like our warped federalism, the Nigerian judiciary and judicial system must be saved and rescued from the suffocating trauma of vertical unitary governance,” Olanipekun said.

    Hon shares Olanipekun’s views. He said the first step in addressing delay in the appeal process was by amending the Constitution to have certain appeals terminate at the Court of Appeal.

    His words: “Regional Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal should be established to take care of disputes based on state, customary and land laws.

    “The Supreme Court is currently overburdened, hence needs breathing space.

    “As for the Court of Appeal, more Divisions should be created to reduce its workload.

    “Sections 36 (3) and 234 of the Constitution should also be amended to permit a single Justice of the Supreme Court to sit in Chambers and determine all manners of interlocutory applications or motions.”

    Hon said similar constitutional amendments should be introduced in respect of the Court of Appeal.

    “The reason is plain enough: over 80 per cent of appellate delay is caused by interlocutory motions.

    “Put me on record: once this amendment scales through, the issue of delay in dispensing appellate justice will be consigned to history,” Hon said.

    ‘Amend the Constitution’

    Daudu said while it is correct that some appeals have been “asleep” in the Supreme Court Registry for upwards of 10 years, the reason, according to him, is due to the increased volume of appeals.

    “When the Court of Appeal was created in 1976, there were only four divisions of the Court.

    “Today, there are 16 divisions of the Court of Appeal seeking to satisfy a congested docket of cases fuelled by an ever increasing population of lawyers.

    “When I was called to the bar about four decades ago, we were not more than 500 in my set. Now not less than 6,000 lawyers have been called to the Bar on the average in the past 10 years. Taken together, these are the main reasons for the congestion of cases in these courts.

    “Finally, the constitutional number of the Justices that man these courts have not increased in any appreciable manner or at all.

    “In my view, it is humanly impossible for these judges to discharge qualitatively their adjudicative functions with the amount of pressure heaped on them by the sheer quantity of cases.

    “The strategy for reducing workload in these courts does not lie in the technical nature or otherwise of cases that go to the Appellate courts,” Daudu said.

    To him, the Justices deserve commendation for the much they are doing.

    Igbokwe believes appeals can be restricted through a Constitution amendment.

    According to him, appeals to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on technical grounds would continue as long as constitutional provisions on appeals as of right remain as they are.

    Igbokwe said: “In order to reduce appeals to the Supreme Court, the Constitution could be amended to stop appeals to the Supreme Court requiring its leave or the leave of the Court of Appeal.

    “Moreover, any appeal arising from the challenge of an arbitral award should not go beyond the Court of Appeal.”

    Igbokwe said the Supreme Court could have three different panels sitting on different appeals at the same time, rather than one

    “So, the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of Justices of the Supreme Court.

    “I am of the view that the Supreme Court is overworked especially during election petitions and a lot of commercial and admiralty appeals before it suffer delays because they are not given priority like election appeals.

    “As the constitutional number of the Justices of Supreme Court is increased, more Justices of the Court of Appeal and interested Senior Advocates of Nigeria can be elevated to the Supreme Court to help it in sitting in three panels (which I believe was why there are three court rooms). Appeals in the Court would thus be determined faster.

    “If nothing is done to change the situation, it could lead to anarchy as parties may resort to self-help or other means of settling disputes as they regard justice delayed as justice denied,” Igbokwe said.

    ‘Develop efficient systems’

    Idigbe regretted that Nigerian judiciary is “unrelentingly blighted”, notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial within a reasonable time.

    To him, delays can be reduced “through active court management” and “developing effective strategies”.

    Such strategies, Idigbe said, include appointment of qualified/experienced court administrators, preparation of strategic management plan, caseflow management, case monitoring systems, judicial accountability and productivity monitoring, deployment of ICT to record management and other services, training and staff empowerment.

    “If delay is to be tackled effectively, then a professional, comprehensive and strategic approach to court administration should be adopted,” Idigbe said.

    Agbakoba, like Idigbe, believes better case management by the Justices would help reduce their dockets.

    “I have spoken ad nausem (repeatedly) on this point and no one at the National Judicial Council (NJC) is listening.

    “Judges control their courts under a power known as case management but many fail to exercise it and rather put the blame on counsel,” he said.

    For Raji, one way to curb delays in the appellate courts is to limit the right of appeal.

    “A situation where over a thousand appeals are filed in a year deserves a thorough re-appraisal. The highest court of a country is not just any other court. It is the fountain of justice and policy and not just a court for normal day to day disputes.

    “All appeals to the Supreme Court should, therefore, be by leave of the Supreme Court,” Raji said.

    Raji believes creating more appeal court divisions would help.

    “With respect to the Court of Appeal, there should be more divisions and except in rare cases, interlocutory appeals should be discouraged or be directed to be combined with the substantive appeal where it will accord with the justice of the case,” Raji said.

    ‘Justices deserve better’

    For Adegboruwa, the problem lies with too many cases and few justices to handle them.

    He noted that in Lagos State for example, the Court of Appeal is expected to sit over appeals from about 66 high courts and 15 Federal high courts.

    It is also expected to hear appeals arising from Customary Court of Appeal, Election Petitions Tribunal, Tax Appeal Tribunal, Securities and Exchange Tribunal, Military Court Martial, professional disciplinary committees of lawyers, doctors, accountants, architects, surveyors, among others.

    Adegboruwa said on the average, close to 100 appeals are filed daily in Lagos.

    Thus, on the average, about five appeals and about 10 applications are taken per day by Justices who, after long hours of sitting in court, have to return to their chambers to render well considered decisions.

    The same scenario, he said, plays out at the Supreme Court, which takes appeals from all divisions of the Court of Appeal across Nigeria.

    The activist-lawyer said the situation in the appellate courts is worsened by “the needless” focus on anti-corruption cases, with commercial disputes, land cases, chieftaincy disputes, admiralty matters all receiving secondary attention.

    Politicians, he noted, deliberately “escaped” the intractable delays by amending the Constitution to have election petitions and related cases heard and determined within a specific period of time.

    Worst still, he said there is no corresponding investment in the court system by the government.

    “The basic solution, therefore, is to appoint more Justices, build more courts and then attend to the welfare conditions of judicial officers.

    “Compared to the average member of the House of Representatives, a Justice of the Court of Appeal is totally neglected, with no judicial assistant, no functional gadgets for research and no means of sourcing legal materials other than the individual and personal efforts of the Justices.

    “Compared to the average Senator or Minister, a Justice of the Supreme Court is totally abandoned, and yet crowded with work, seven days of the week and 24 hours. Most of them write their rulings and judgments at home since they have to sit in court during the day.

    “The other solution is to consider amending the Constitution to limit interlocutory appeals.

    “Most of the appeals pending are on decisions taken in the course of the main case, all of which work to cause great delay, especially when an order for a stay of proceedings pending appeal is granted.

    “Above all, the government should be sincere to invest more in the judiciary.”

     

    ‘Impose severe sanctions’

    Oguntade was of the view that, as things stand, the constitutional right of appeal is substantially open-ended, with little or no restriction.

    “This being so, and Nigerians being naturally litigious, they will appeal on every single decision regardless of the merit.

    “It, therefore, follows that to address this problem, it is imperative that constitutional amendments be effected such that the right of appeal will be circumscribed and delimited,” he said.

    The High Court, he said, ought to be empowered to refuse leave to appeal in obvious cases where such an appeal serves no useful purpose except to congest appellate dockets and make life difficult for the victorious party.

    Similarly, the Court of Appeal, he said, should have the same powers with respect to prospective appeals to the Supreme Court.

    “Next is the issue of costs. Put simply, a losing appellant has little to worry about save filing fees and professional fees of counsel.

    “The victorious party, who has been put through the trauma of a frivolous appeal, is still left short-changed at the end of the appeal.

    “In advanced jurisdictions, costs are usually a crucial consideration in deciding whether to pursue an appeal or not, as costs awarded against a losing party are usually very substantial.

    “The rationale is that it serves as a deterrent to the filing of spurious appeals. This ensures that only serious cases proceed to the appellate costs.

    “Surely, where a prospective appellant knows beforehand that he is likely to be damnified in costs running into millions of Naira, he will think twice before embarking on a useless appeal,” Oguntade said.

    The Senior Advocate said practitioners who ought to know better were complicit by advising and encouraging clients to file frivolous appeals.

    “In many jurisdictions, such conduct will constitute abuse of process and perhaps professional misconduct, thus rendering them amenable to serious disciplinary actions which will include personal fines, suspension and in some cases, disbarment.

    “It, therefore, follows that the courts have a crucial role to play by promptly reporting erring lawyers to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for appropriate action.

    “There is no doubt that once this is done, lawyers will act more professionally and the present floodgate of useless appeals will gradually begin to close,” the SAN added.

    Oguntade’s views tally with suggestions by Strachan Partners. The firm noted that some lawyers use the appeal process as a ploy to stall the progress of a case.

    Such lawyers file appeals against interlocutory rulings and by the time the interlocutory appeals are finally decided by the Supreme Court, continuation of the substantive trial at the High Court becomes a waste of time and effort.

    The firm said some counsel file applications for extension of time within which to appeal on the frivolous excuse that the certified true copy of the judgment appealed against could not be procured within the statutory period stipulated for appeal.

    “One major solution to the problem of using appeals as a ploy to stall trial at the lower court is by adopting a similar practice direction contained in the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions 2011 which empower the Court of Appeal to consolidate all interlocutory and substantive appeals in an election petition.

    “Therefore, at the trial stage, the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules should be amended in such a way that judges can refuse to stay proceedings of the substantive suit to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory ruling.

    “The Court can shorten the lifespan of a case if it imposes heavy costs and penalties for default of appearance or delay in filing process.

    “In addition, where a party fails to appeal within the period prescribed by law, the Court should not grant an application for leave to appeal or for extension of time unless in special circumstances or in the alternative, impose a very heavy penalty on the appellant,” the firm said.

    Wanted: less emphasis on technicalities

    For Otteh, if a preponderance of appeals is over technical issues, it means that technicalities play a dominant part in deciding the outcome of a majority of litigations.

    In essence, there is an acceptance in Nigerian jurisprudence of what he called ‘technical lawyering’.

    “Current Nigerian jurisprudence tells litigants they can prevail over their opponents if they muster enough technical fire power, and so, for every perceived misstep in a proceeding, an objection is raised on the ‘jurisdiction’ of the court.

    “The matter is fought up to the Supreme Court, with the possibility that the Supreme Court, perhaps, will sustain the objection,” Otteh said.

    According to him, it is sometimes difficult to avoid the feeling that the Supreme Court encourages focus on technicalities “by its sometimes formalistic, legalistic interpretations”.

    This, Otteh said, has encouraged litigants who have no answer to a suit to hold on to “technical straws”.

    “If our Supreme Court were more beholden to a liberal, justice-centred philosophy of interpretation and adjudication, there will be less fuss over technicalities and cases would be decided more on their merits.

    “And, if the prospects for sustaining purely technical argumentation dim at the appellate courts, this would ‘dis-incentivise’ appeals, and where this happens, the appellate caseload would naturally reduce,” Otteh said.

    ‘Review Appeal Court rules, others’

    Pinheiro called for an immediate amendment of the Court of Appeal Act, Court of Appeal Rules and Sections 241 and 242 of the Constitution to restrict the rights of interlocutory appeals.

    The court, he said, must also adopt strict approach in granting leave to appeal, and must enforce the cost regime better.

    According to him, applications to stay proceedings of trial courts filed at the Court of Appeal should be heard and determined expeditiously.

    He said there should no further right to pursue such an application at the Supreme Court where it is dismissed by the Court of Appeal, except in cases where the Court of Appeal is a court of first instance.

    He said there must be a provision similar to Section 40 of the EFCC Act.

    “The provision of the Court of Appeal Rules that ousts the jurisdiction of the trial court once an appeal has been entered should be expunged from the Court of Appeal Rules by way of legislative intervention.

    “A party who seeks to pursue an interlocutory appeal while the trial is ongoing should be at his own frolic.

    “The time for filing of briefs should also be limited. It should not be more than seven days each to both parties once the records have been compiled and transmitted.

    “Also, where records are not compiled within time, the appeal should be dismissed out rightly. Housekeeping applications should be taken in chambers.

    “The cost regime must also be applied strictly with punitive sanctions on lawyers who frustrate hearings. From the Justices perspective, there must be constant monitoring of the returns of Court of Appeal Justices in terms of the judgments/rulings delivered.

    “Where a Presiding Justice of a division fails to meet up with his returns, he should be transferred to another Division where he would not preside,” Pinheiro said.

    A committed judiciary?

    There is no doubt that it will require commitment by all stakeholders to quicken appellate court’s adjudicatory process.

    As the CJN acknowledged, the conventional method of justice delivery at the appellate courts is cumbersome, time consuming, susceptible to loss or theft of court documents.

    There is difficulty in filing court processes which is subject to abuse and gives room for corrupt practices.

    In Justice Onnoghen’s words, ICT-assisted justice system “would enhance justice by ensuring, for example, that information is adequately captured and passed on digitally, data exchange will not be disintegrated and court processes will be finalised and ready on demand.”

    He added: “With e-justice system, case management will be automated, payment of fees will be made through dedicated websites to reduce corruption, and forms that simplify and streamline court proceedings will be available to court users online.

    “However such measures must be accompanied by enhanced capacity of personnel and investments in cyber security,” the CJN said.

    Justice Onnoghen said the Supreme Court, fully cognizant of the role of the judiciary in ensuring that justice is properly served to those who approach the courts, frowns at all forms delays and abuse of court processes.

    “Members of the Bar are, therefore, enjoined to shun all tactics and ploys, which constitute clogs in the seemingly slow-winding wheels of justice so that they do not come to a grinding halt.

    “I share the view that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria are the most hard working Supreme Court Justices in the world. As we sit daily and work tirelessly, we remain committed to expeditious dispensation of justice.”

    What is left, according to observers, is the will and commitment by all stakeholders to do what needed.

  • Court of Appeal plans for better 2018

    Court of Appeal plans for better 2018

    For two days last week, Justices of the Court of Appeal met in Abuja to review the court’s activities in 2017 and strategise on way forward. Eric Ikhilae reports.

    SEVENTY-SIX Justices of the Court of Appeal, from its 16 divisions nationwide, converged on Abuja for two days last week for brainstorming.

    The Annual Justices Conference of the Court of Appeal, held between December 14 and 15, afforded the judicial officers the opportunity to review their performance during the year, identify errors committed and strategise on how to ensure improved performance in the coming year.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, praised the court for its outstanding performance in the receding year.

    He added: “I am very proud of the leadership strides of the President of the Court of Appeal and all the Justices of the court, who worked assiduously to decongest the courts by speedy conclusion of matters pending before your various divisions.”

    Onnoghen spoke on the need for more openness in the conduct of court activities, for judges to distance themselves from unethical conduct and to watch their back when dealing with politicians.

    He noted that election season was around the corner and urged the gathering to work to prevent a repeat of the unpleasant development during the last post-election litigation season where various divisions of the Court of Appeal came up with varied decisions on similar issues.

    Justice Onnoghen said the problem of conflicting judgments could be addressed where Justices of the court abide by the time-tested legal principle of stare decisis (precedent).

    “I urge you to change your attitude towards your obligation to stare decisis. The benefits are far-reaching and far out-weigh the few and feeble disadvantages.

    “On Judicial precedents as it relates to election and pre-election matters, I want to remind us that the Supreme Court has decided in a number of cases that the principles of judicial review, such as mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, etc do not apply, because election and election-related matters, such as pre-election causes, are suis generis.

    “There is an emerging trend whereby a party in a pre-election or election matter, after exhausting his remedies sometimes up to the Supreme Court still pursues a parallel cause of action under the guise of judicial review hoping that one of such parallel actions may succeed, thereby making the Court to contradict itself resulting in great embarrassment to the system.

    “Much injustice is thereby created, particularly in matters that may not get to the Supreme Court for correction.

    “Where, however, the matter gets to the Supreme Court and the right thing is done, much injustice would have been occasioned by not following the principles of stare decisis.

    “I am saying these because soon the tempo of political activities will pick up and some lawyers will stop at nothing in their effort to outsmart the Bench; so be very, very careful and as I have always said, be on top of your game by mastering the principles of laws and facts relevant to the case or issues involved in the dispute so as not to allow legal practitioners to mislead you to the embarrassment of the Judiciary.

    “Always be consistent by following the principles of stare decisis and the law. If you stick to this simple piece of advice, you will not go wrong in your determinations/ decisions.

    “I therefore say to all of us, be strong, courageous, fair but firm. Stick to the constitutional provisions, the Law and doctrine of precedents (stare – decisis) and you cannot go wrong,” Onnoghen said.

    The conference also witnessed presentations of health and time management, probity and accountability.

    Participants were tasked on probity and accountability and given tips on how the Justices could improve on their performance and ensure quality time management, which are described cardinal to incentives to attaining speedy justice dispensation.

    President Court of Appeal (PCA) Justice Zanaibe Bulkachuwa explained the reason for the gathering. She said it is a tradition set aside to bring together Justices of the court ”to brainstorm on the successes so far recorded with a view to highlighting and proffering solutions to the issues raised”.

    She gave an overview of the court’s performance in the receding year, saying the the Justices had done a good job. She explained how her court was able to land its outstanding performance in the year, noting the creation of a task force for the decongestion of the court’s docket.

    Justice Bulkachuwa explained that the taskforce required that Justices from less busy divisions of the court move to, and sit over pending appeals in busier divisions, while also taking out time in between to sit in their primary divisions.

    The PCA, who gave details of her participation in the activities of the task force, said she moved with some Justices of Abuja division to sit in Lokoja in September to determine appeals emanating from Kogi State.

    She added: “Other divisions of the court have also, during the year, moved to states within their jurisdictions to hear appeals in those states with a view to bringing justice closer to the people.

    “This extraordinary feat by my brother Justices in all the 16 divisions of the court has recorded 3001 judgments as well as 6963.”

    The PCA, who noted that the Judiciary came under attacks on allegation of corrupt practices, cautioned the court’s Justices against associating themselves with acts that could soil their reputation.

    She stressed: “As judicial officers, it is not enough to simply talk about corrupt practices but one must believe in the fight against corruption and we must work at it together.

    “I therefore, urge us all to eschew corruption and uphold best practices that will rekindle and bring back trust to the judicial arm of government.

    “Let’s not ask how corruption can be tackled. Our main focus should be on what we can do as individuals, or collectively as a body to address this plague.”

    Giving hints of what the court was doing to improve on its operations in the new year, the PCA said the court would deploy information and communication technologies (ICT) in all the its divisions next year, beginning with Abuja, the headquarters.

    This, she said, was part of initiatives to ensure that the court remains persistently relevant in today’s fast developing world, which continues to open new opportunities that hitherto were unthinkable.

    She added: “Several reforms are being introduced to allow the use of exchange of electronic data and documents within the judicial system. Permit me to say here that the future is not about hardware or software. It is about making those technologies work for you.

    “It is my pleasure to notify your lordships that the Court of Appeal Mediation Centre will soon take off by early next year in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja Divisions.

    “The Court of Appeal Mediation Programme (CAMP) is a step towards disposing appeals before the court without recourse to litigation.

    “It will give an enabling environment to litigants to fully enjoy the flavour attached to Order 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016. The mediation programme will go a long way to decongest the Court of backlog of Appeals,” Justice Bulkachuwa said.