Reckless orders

•CJN’s directive to courts is the right thing to do

THE directive by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen, that courts must be wary of issuing remand orders, when the proof of evidence against an accused is very weak, or when the court lacks jurisdiction, is a welcome development. If carried out, it will stem the abuse of our constitution by prosecutor agencies, who use what is referred to as ‘a holding charge’, to defeat the regulation on how long an accused can be detained, without a court order.

By the provisions of section 35(4)&(5) of the 1999 constitution (as amended), any person arrested must be brought before a court, within a reasonable time. Under the provision, what constitutes a reasonable time was defined. There is no doubt that what the constitution envisages, is a court that has jurisdiction to hear a case, not a court that will temporarily put the accused in detention, while the prosecutor shops for the appropriate court that has jurisdiction.

So, the charge by the CJN to the lower courts not to be used to defeat the provisions of our law is in order. Addressing the opening session of the 2018 All Nigerian Judges’ Conference of the lower courts, at the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja, the CJN admonished them, thus: “reckless remand orders must not be issued by your courts, where it appears that the police lack evidence to prosecute a criminal matter or your courts do not possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain such matter.”

The CJN, in essence, charged the lower courts to examine whether a prima facie case has been established, before they order for the detention of the accused person. In practice, once a person is charged to court, even for the flimsiest reason, the judges at the lower courts are wary of discharging the accused person, so as not to be seen as aiding criminality. Most of them believe it is their responsibility to help the prosecutor to keep the accused in detention, while the investigation is going on.

Furthermore, to aid prosecution, they give stringent bail conditions, with scant regard to the proof of evidence. Now that the CJN has stated clearly the role of the courts, we hope that when a prosecutor brings an accused to court, and fails to establish a prima facie case; instead of aiding the abuse of our laws, the magistrate will discharge the accused, after all, the prosecutor is entitled to file a fresh charge when it has put its house in order.

The CJN also observed that the level of prison congestion is a “national embarrassment.” Indeed, we have railed at this prevalent anomaly on this page many times. So, we join the CJN to call for a radical change, in the interest of the rule of law. To stem the congestion of our prisons, we identify with the CJN’s directive to the heads of courts, to work “in synergy with the various attorneys-general of states, to pay frequent visits to prison facilities within their jurisdictions in a bid to assess the situation on a first-hand basis.”

Also, the CJN pointedly told the lower courts that they are largely responsible for the congestion of our prisons. In his words: “the numerous and sometimes needless remand orders issued by magistrates are a major factor responsible for the congestion of our prisons.” It is therefore appropriate that the biennial conference, centred around educating the magistrates on their proper role.

Addressing the magistrates, the NJI Administrator, Justice R. P. I. Bozimo, said: “the theme of this year’s conference, therefore, is timely, considering the role which your category of courts plays in our legal system.” We concur.