Law experts from various prosecuting agencies, judges and magistrates met in Abuja on August 25, to strategise on ways to ensure prompt justice delivery in criminal cases.

They considered ways to balance the rights of defendants as captured in Section 36 of the Constitution with the need to prevent delay as envisaged in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 requiring courts to adopt case management strategies.

Among speakers at the event, tagged “Technical workshop on the balancing of Section 36 of the Constitution and Case Management Hearing (CMH)”, were the acting Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Hussein Baba Yusuf; former Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Mrs. Olufemi Fatunde; Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abuja, Bulus Atsen; Chief Magistrate Omotola Akindele, Professor Jacob Dada of the University of Calabar and Sulayman Dawodu of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC).

The well-attended workshop was put together by the  ACJMC, with support from the MacArthur Foundation.

Represented by Justice Christopher Oba, the FCT Chief Judge stressed the importance of case management hearing in curbing delay in criminal justice administration process and commended those behind the initiative.

Chief Magistrate Akindele explained the concept of CMH, dwelt on its basic principles and spoke about her practical experience in the deployment of the strategy.

Atsen and Austin Emumejakpor of Austin Laurel Consulting spoke in favour of and against CMH. While Atsen argued that it was against the interest of a defendant, Emumejakpor insisted otherwise.

Atsen noted that while CMH in criminal trial places obligations on both the prosecution and the defence to disclose, to a reasonable extend, the substance of their cases, it impacts parties in different  forms.

“For example, while a Prosecutor may choose to separate charges against a particular defendant at the hearing, the defendant may appear to be forced to only rely on the defences disclosed during the CMH.

“Thus, the requirement for the defence to disclose the nature of its defence at the stage of CMH clearly negates the presumption of innocence as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and the Sec 135 and 138 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which place the burden of proof squarely on the prosecution.

“The likelihood of self-incrimination is most probable during CMH. Therefore, as desirable as CMH may seem, it is likely to face some constitutional and legislative gridlocks in Nigeria,” Atsen said.

Read Also: Unlawful arrest: Are law enforcement agents beyond redemption?

Emumejakpor argued that “a criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance.

“It is a search for truth in accordance with the twin principles that the prosecution must prove its case and that a defendant is not obliged to inculpate himself, the object being to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent

“Requiring a defendant to indicate, in advance, what he disputes about the prosecution’s case offends neither of the principles,” he said.

Emumejakpor was of the view that “the present system, as it stands, provides full cover for criminals and makes it almost impossible to bring criminals to justice.

“Until we appreciate the rationale behind criminal prosecution, that is, to send the innocent free and punish the guilty, which require all persons involved in the criminal justice system to play their roles, guided by ethics, with the over-arching goal to create a good society, we will not make progress but continue to dance on the same spot.”

Prof Dada argued that although the CMH could be rendered adequate by the right of a defendant to remain silent, as guaranteed by sections 35(2) and 36(11) of the Constitution, there are other that could be adopted by multi-stakeholders in the criminal justice sector.