The Nation Newspaper

Tag: ACJA

  • BREAKING: CCT Chair insists on Onnoghen’s appearance

    The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar has directed the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen to appear before the tribunal in person before any further businesses could be conducted in the case pending against him.

    Umar gave the directive at the resumption of proceedings in the case on Monday, shortly before agreeing to the request by parties for adjournment to February 13.

    Read Also: BREAKING: CJN at CCT: proceedings suspended abruptly

    He said: “Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), a defendant, who is served with a charge and represented by lawyers, must take his plea before raising any objection.

    “The defendant has continued to stay away from this tribunal. I am going to grant this adjournment at the instance of the prosecution and defence, but must state that the defendant must attend court at the next adjourned date so that all the issues would be resolved in his presence.”

    Details later.

  • Acja and preservation of constitutional safeguards

    Being text of a paper delivered by law teacher and prosecutor Wahab Shittu at the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC) roundtable on July 24.

    Introduction

    Please allow me to start my presentation by paying glowing tribute to the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) for its complementary activities in wiping out corruption from our country, uncommon contributions to law reform and administration of justice and commitment to constitutional safeguards since it came on board at the outset of this administration.

    I am also extremely honoured to share this podium with the eminent and highly cerebral senior friend, Prof Fidelis Oditah QC, SAN, visiting Professor of Law, University of Oxford with whom I have been associated professionally as a mentee and on a personal level since 1983 when I gained admission to study law at the University of Lagos and encountered this uncommon intellectual prodigy as a first year law student.

    The choice of the guest speaker to lead this discourse is a fitting one considering his track record of excellence, experience, exposure and brilliance. As we all know, the guest speaker had graduated at the top of his class with first class honours, a feat he repeated at the Nigerian Law School. I have since followed closely his impressive career profile leading to the famous commentary by the British which I paraphrase thus: Fidelis Oditah has such a huge brain to the extent that if there is something not contained in Oditah’s huge brain, that thing probably does not exist. It is for these reasons that I tremble in making my contributions to this challenging topic knowing that, as always, I have a lot to learn from this internationally acclaimed QC and Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

    This roundtable is on the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the preservation of constitutional safeguards with emphasis on Section 306 of the ACJA, which outlawed the grant of stay of proceedings in criminal trials. In the case of Olisah Metuh v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of section 306 of the ACJA 2015 and this has generated controversy.

    There are those who contend that the Supreme Court decision does not derogate from any of the constitutional safeguards while others argue that the decision impacts negatively on the inherent powers of courts guaranteed under section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution as well as the principles of fair hearing preserved under section 36 of the Constitution among others including constitutional provisions on litigant’s right of appeal. This roundtable is designed to engage all of these issues with a view to deepening our jurisprudence and perspective.

    The main purposes of the ACJA 2015 include among others: the promotion of efficient management of criminal justice institutions and speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime, and protection of the rights and the interest of the defendant and the victim.

    Significantly, in order to ensure speedy trial, the Act provides in Section 306 that application for stay of proceedings shall no longer be heard until judgment and cannot operate to stall continuation of trial.

    This is a revolutionary move that is unprecedented given the delays occasioned to the trial process by interlocutory applications to stay proceedings pending appeal on preliminary matters even when the substantive issues are yet to be tried on the merits.

    What the ACJA has done is to amplify the provisions of the Constitution to ensure speedy dispensation of justice. This new law is very progressive, timely and in conformity with international best practices.

    It is against this background that I now proceed to examine the implications of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Olisah Metuh v. FRN on the constitutionality of Section 306 of the ACJA 2015 which outlawed the grant of stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

    In resolving the question as to whether the decision strengthens constitutional safeguards or otherwise, I have arranged my paper into eight parts.

    Immediately following the introduction is part B which examines the purport of Section 306 of the ACJA 2015 and Section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004; part C examines issues that have arisen as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Olisah Metuh v. FRN (SC. 457/2016) outlawing stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

    Part D is the summary of key findings of the Supreme Court in Olisah Metuh v. FRN; Part E, which is the meat of the paper, examines the legal and constitutional implications of the decision in Olisah Metuh v. FRN; Part F examines the phenomenon of  abuse of stay of proceedings and demonstrates how same is tackled in other jurisdictions with specific emphasis on the Supreme Court pronouncement on the practice in India.

    Part G deals with summary of my arguments in the paper. Part H concludes the paper with the emphatic point made that the decision of the Supreme Court in Olisah Metuh v FRN is courageous and will impact positively on the administration of criminal justice system and speedy trial process in the country.

    In the concluding part, the paper also made other recommendations including punishing irresponsible prosecutions to the prejudice of the defendant, drawing examples from the UK experience and the need for rigid enforcement of ethical, moral and professional standards by counsel.

     Purport of Section 306 of the ACJA 2015 and Section 40 of the EFCC Act 2004.

    The ACJA has impacted on criminal justice administration in several respects by introducing innovations notably section 306 which provides: Application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained.

    Section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 of similar import provides: Subject to the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, an application for stay of proceedings in respect of any criminal matter brought by the Commission before the High Court shall not be entertained until judgment is delivered by the High Court.

     Issues

    Arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Olisah Metuh v FRN, in my respectful opinion, are the following issues:

    Whether the decision outlawing the grant of stay of proceedings in criminal trials reinforces the legality of Section 306 of the ACJA 2015?

    Whether the decision violates inherent powers conferred on the court by Section 6 of the Constitution of the FRN 1999 (as amended)?

    Whether the decision violates the right to fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36 and other sections of the Constitution of the FRN 1999 (as amended)?  Or

    Whether the decision indeed strengthens constitutional safeguards on fair hearing and speedy dispensation of justice?

    Essentially, these are the three main issues that my intervention will seek to address in the context of the Supreme Court decision in Olisah Metuh v. FRN and wider implications on the preservation of constitutional safeguards.

     Summary of key findings of the Supreme Court in Olisah Metuh v. FRN

    In the case, the Supreme Court held as follows: “On whether stay of proceedings can be granted in criminal trial commenced under EFCC Act, 2004 or Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 –

    “Section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 and section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 respectively state that a trial court lacks powers to order stay of proceedings in a criminal trial commenced under the Acts. In this case, the appellant’s trial is under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and his application is in conflict with the provisions of the Act and the EFCC Act.  The application was therefore dismissed. (Pp. 176-177, paras.G-B; 179 paras.A-C, E-F; 180, paras.C-E; 181-182, paras.G-C; 183, paras. C-E)

    “On Limit on general powers of Supreme Court to grant stay of lower courts’ proceedings –

    “Under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court may, from time to time make an interim order or grant any injunction which the court below is authorized to make or grant.  So the powers given to the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings of a lower court can only be exercised to that extent in respect of the orders which the lower court is authorised to make or grant. 

    “In this case, by the combined provisions of section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, and section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, the trial court and the Court of Appeal lacked powers to order stay of proceedings in a criminal trial.  In the circumstance, the Supreme Court lacks the power to order stay of proceedings of the trial of the appellant and 2nd respondent. (Pp. 176-177, paras.F-F; 178, paras.D-E; p. 179, paras.A-C; 180 paras.F-G; 182, paras. C-E).”

    “On when application of principle of fair hearing will affect grant of stay of criminal proceedings-

    “Section 36(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides that whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal.  The import of the foregoing constitutional provision is that where the grant of an application for stay will unnecessarily delay and prolong criminal proceedings, it will not be granted. 

    “In this case, the grant of the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings would result in undue delay in the trial of the appellant.  Further, the application conflicts with the provisions of section 36(4) of the Constitution (as amended), section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, and section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.  In order words, the application is against clear constitutional and statutory provisions that enjoin and mandate the trial court not to delay criminal cases. (Pp. 178, paras.F-H; 182, para.G).

    Fundamentally, there are other key findings of the Supreme Court in the case particularly concerning attitude of courts to trial pertaining to crimes against persons and economic crimes, the purport of section 40 of the EFCC Act 2004, the limit of scope of powers vested in courts under section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and whether section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act can be invoked to stay proceedings in criminal trials that are examined in the course of this presentation.

    Legal and constitutional implications of the decision in Olisah Metuh v. FRN

    1. i) Strengthens Constitutional Safeguards and Reinforces legality of Section 306 ACJA

    The Supreme Court pronouncement reinforces the legality of section 306 of the ACJA 2015 and strengthens constitutional safeguards on speedy determination of criminal cases, including defining the scope of inherent powers of the court guaranteed under section 6 of the constitution amongst others.  I will, however, focus on the impact of the decision in forestalling the element of delay in the trial process and also address other implications of the judgment.

    1. ii) Decision Forestalls Delay in the Criminal Trial Process

    One way of appreciating the case of Metuh v FRN is to consider delays occasioned to the criminal trial process particularly in respect of high profile cases prior to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the case.Many of the high profile cases dragged on needlessly to the embarrassment of our criminal justice delivery system. We give a few examples:

    • EFCC v Akingbola (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1478) was remitted back for trial after five years;
    • Nyame v FRN remains unresolved after several years;
    • Kalu v. FRN lasted for about ten years;
    • Dariye v FRN dragged on for over a decade before conviction was recorded recently.
    • FRN v Borishade lasted until the defendant’s demise.

    The above are few examples of the resultant damage done to criminal justice system by stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals as instruments of delay in the trial process.

    This intolerable situation has attracted scathing remarks even from outside our shores.  In the case of IPCO Nigeria v. NNPC (2014) EWHC 576 (Comm)., The English Court of Appeal observed that the Nigeria Judicial System is ‘bedeviled by catastrophic delays’.

    Against this background, the Supreme Court decision in Metuh v. FRN is the beginning of a new era aimed at forestalling the element of delay in the criminal trial process occasioned principally by stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals.

    In the leading judgment delivered by Clara Ogunbiyi JSC, the Supreme Court held:

    “Contrary to the submission advanced by the applicant’s counsel, the consequential effect is that, the Supreme Court, like the two lower courts, also lacks the powers to stay proceedings under section 22 Supreme Court Act or under its inherent powers.”(At p.177)

     

    • To be continued next week

  • How to ensure ACJA’s success – CJN

    The Chief Justice of Nigerian ( CJN ), Justice Walter Onnoghen, warned on Wednesday that the objectives of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 would be defeated if stakeholders in the criminal justice administration sector fail to collaborate.

    Onnoghen said there was need for adequate understanding and effective application of the various innovative provisions of the ACJA in the criminal justice sector for the law’s objectives to be attained.

    The CJN spoke at the opening session of a two-day workshop on “the implementation and compliance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, organized by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja.

    He said the ACJA was not designed to do away with the already existing criminal laws in its entirety but  to preserve and make them stronger by introducing innovative provisions that would enhance the efficiency of the justice system.

    The CJN said: “This is a paradigm shift in the criminal justice system of Nigeria, from a punitive approach to a restorative approach, with the needs of the society, victims, vulnerable persons and human dignity at the forefront.

    “With this shift from the law as it used to be, the advent of the ACJA, comes with a number of challenges, especially with regards to its application, implementation, compliance and funding; hence the need for this workshop.

    “The objective of the ACJA will never be attained unless, and until all relevant stakeholders in the criminal justice system are aligned and work collaboratively to ensure that the Act is not just implemented but complied with.”

  • ‘ACJA has restored dignity to justice system’

    Prof Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN) was one of those who conceived and pursued the passage of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 into law. In this interview with Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, he shares his views on the impact of the Act, its challenges and the way forward.

    You were very involved in the conception and passage of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Would you say that the Act has achieved it objectives in criminal justice administration in the country today?

    Thanks for your kind words and appreciation of my role in coordinating the various processes which led to the passage of the ACJA at the Federal level. The Act will be three years old on 14 May, 2018. It has restored agility and dignity to the Nigerian criminal justice system. The Supreme Court has endorsed the Act in the case of Saraki v. FRN where the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) (as then was) held that the ACJA applies to the Code of Conduct Tribunal and that it has replaced the old criminal procedure laws. Similarly, with the endorsement by the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of the ACJA prohibition of Stay of Proceedings in Criminal trials, the Act has become the single most revolutionary reform in criminal procedure law of the country since Independence.

    Why do you say this?

    It has compelled the introduction of specialised courts to handle high profile corruption cases and the issuance of new guidelines and practice directions for speedy trial on day to day basis. The ACJA has brought about tremendous changes in the criminal justice system.

    Similarly, the ACJA has brought about the establishment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC) at the Federal level. The ACJA has been domesticated in about 14 states of the Federation.

    Can we say that the Act has realized its objectives?

    Well, the Act has not yet fully realized its objectives of speedy trial. The necessary resources needed to ensure proper implementation of the ACJA have not been provided by the government. Several of its laudable innovative provisions have not been given effect. Investigators and prosecutors need to strengthened and challenged to give full effect to the Act. Relevant data mandated by the Act are not yet being collated. So there is still a large room for improvement.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) led by Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) is pushing for the adoption and implementation of the Act in all the States of the Federation including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). What is your appraisal of these efforts and how do we improve same?

    The NBA president, A.B Mahmud is a social reformer and gentleman. He and the Secretary, Aare Olagunju and other members of the NBA Executive have done a lot to advance the domestication of the ACJA all over the country. The collaboration between the NBA and the MacArthur Foundation is highly commendable. Mr Mahmoud is a law reformer and a progressive (SAN) with broad outlook. He has introduced far-reaching reforms. However, the NBA and the body of SANs and indeed all lawyers must do more to protect the judiciary. The welfare of judges must be looked into urgently.

    Why do you say so?

    Several of them have been on the same salary scale for decades. New judges are paid the same salary as the senior judges. That’s highly demoralising. The NBA should set up a strong committee to advocate and push for significant improvement in the welfare of judges. The politicians will not do it because they fear a strong, independent and incorruptible judiciary which cannot be easily compromised. The ACJA has now been domesticated in about 14 states. Several other states are in the process of passing the law. We salute the NBA President and his able team for this remarkable achievement.

    How best can ACJA be fast-tracked to actualise its objectives?

    There is need to strengthen and monitor the work of investigators and prosecutors.  They should only take water tight cases with solid evidence and witnesses to court for prosecution. There should be proper coordination between the Office of the AG of the Federation and the the prosecutorial agencies. Then a solid witness support and protection system should be put in place especially in regard to High Profile Cases. Electronic recording of proceedings should be introduced urgently beginning with the specialized courts such that the practice of starting part-heard Cases de novo should cease. The new judges can watch the previous proceedings and continue from there. Judges too should be well motivated. Their salary should be increased and their working conditions transformed. Ten per cent of funds and assets recovered should be channelled toward improving the justice system. A sound justice system will strengthen the economy and the political system.

    How can this feat be achieved?

    President Muhammadu Buhari should set up a high powered national committee under the Vice President and give the committee the mandate and resources to turn around the Justice sector. The Vice President is the foremost justice reformer in the country. The country should take advantage of his being in government to turn around the sector. The Attorney-General of the Federation must be part of the Presidential Committee to turn around the justice sector.

  • The holes in ACJA

    •Appeal Court judge on how to plug them

    SOME of the challenges facing the implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, were highlighted by Justice M.A. Owoade of the Court of Appeal, at the Professor Adedokun Adebayo Adeyemi Foundation (PAAAF) Annual Lecture Series, held at the University of Lagos. In his lecture titled: “The criminal justice system in Nigeria: past, present and future”, the learned jurist highlighted the non-replication of the ACJA across states, poor stakeholders’ attitude and dearth of funds as impediments to the efficiency of the act.

    In the words of Justice Owoade: “It is imperative for overall effectiveness and efficacy of the criminal justice system for the ACJA to be replicated in the states of the federation. The state governments must therefore be encouraged to replicate the ACJA in their various states. One possible challenge or impediment to the implementation of the ACJA is funding and the other is the need for change of attitude by the various stakeholders.”

    Of these submissions, the worst is the lackadaisical attitude of critical stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice.

    On that, we refer to the bar and the bench, and note that some of the members appear not to appreciate the gravity of the challenge posed by weak criminal justice system to the country. When matters are left to linger in courts, it is because the courts allow lawyers, especially the senior advocates, to foist irrelevant technicalities on them. Yet, the ACJA had such invidious attitude in mind when it introduced measures to restrain adjournments, interlocutory applications, and suspension of trial pending appeal. To stem the abuse, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee must sit up to save the system.

    Another challenge which has to be tackled head-on, is how to encourage states to replicate the ACJA. According to reports, only about 11 states have domesticated the law. Perhaps the media and non-governmental organisations have to collaborate to put pressure on the rest of the states to domesticate the act. In this respect, the collaborative efforts of the NBA with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to strengthen the country’s criminal justice system through the domestication of ACJA in the states, is welcome.

    According to the Coordinator of the NBA MacArthur Foundation Project, Mr. Abdul Rasheed Muritala, at the inauguration of the committee to oversee the implementation of the ACJA in Bauchi State: “The NBA seeks to use this project to improve the state-level adoption rates of the ACJA, 2015, which is a federal legislation currently domesticated in about 11 out of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria.” Mr. Muritala also correctly observed that the “objective of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (will be) unattainable unless all levels of Nigeria’s federal system are aligned and work collaboratively to achieve the purpose of the Act.”

    While the ACJA has brought hope to the administration of our criminal justice system, there is the need to improve on its ability to meet the high expectation of Nigerians, who greeted its introduction with enthusiasm. The issue of funding, diligent investigation, virile prosecution and effective punishment system must be critically appraised. It does not bode well that after years of criminal trial, the state loses such cases out of inefficiency in prosecution, or lack of compelling evidence to convict.

    To achieve the overall improvement of our criminal justice system, all critical stakeholders, including the courts, police, prisons, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other prosecutor agencies must be adequately funded. Of course, the bar and the bench should be in the vanguard to achieve these objectives.

  • The problem with ACJA, by Appeal Court Justice

    IT may be difficult to realise the objectives of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, if the law’s inherrent challenges are not tackled, Justice M. A. Owoade of the Court of Appeal has said.

    In an address at the maiden  Prof Adedokun Adebayo Adeyemi Foundation  (PAAAF) Annual Lecture Series at the University of Lagos, Justice Owoade, who presided over the Ilorin Division of the Court of Appeal, said there were several challenges impeding the ACJA’s implementation.

    His lecture was entitled: The criminal justice system in Nigeria: Past, present and future.

    He warned that the non-replication of the ACJA across states, poor stakeholders’attitude and dearth of funds may impede the achievement of the objects of the Act.

    His words: “The ACJA has been described by various commentators in different complementary ways. Undoubtedly, it is a great improvement on previous legislations on procedural laws and the administration of the criminal justice system.

    “It is imperative for overall effectiveness and efficacy of the criminal justice system for the ACJA to be replicated in the states of the federation.  The state governments must therefore, be encouraged to replicate the ACJA in their various states. One possible challenge or impediment to the implementation of the ACJA is funding and the other is the need for change of attitude by the various stake holders.”

    The revered jurist identified increased funding of the police and other prosecuting agencies “and a determination by stake holders to make the  system work” as some of the ways to realise the “lofty” goals of the ACJA.

    Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour of the Supreme Court noted the phenomenal achievements of the Late Emeritus Professor Adeyemi, adding that he was a profound scholar who taught him criminal law in the early 70s at the University of Lagos.

    He applauded the deceased scholar’s widow and Chairperson of the foundation, Pastor Abimbola Adeyemi and her children for keeping his legacy alive through the foundation and the lecture series, urging all stakeholders to work towards an effective criminal justice system.

    The foundation was established last year to foster the legacy and work of the late jurist and former University of Lagos (UNILAG) Dean of Law, who is adjudged as perhaps Nigeria’s foremost criminologist and criminal law scholar. Its advisory board comprises leading criminal law jurists and practitioners, including Professor Taiwo Osipitan (SAN); UNILAG Dean of Law, Prof. Ayo Atsenuwa and prison reform activist, Dr. Uju Agomoh.

  • Jurist, others blame inadequate funding for poor implementation of ACJA

    Inadequate funding has been discovered as the major challenge to effective implementation of the various innovative provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), two years after its application at the Federal Courts.  Justice Ishaq Bello, Professor Yemi Akinseye-Georrge (SAN), Umar Mohammed and Danladi Plang said this at a forum in Abuja.

    Justice Bello (Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory), Prof Akinseye-George (Head, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies), Mohammed (Director of Public Prosecutions, Federal Ministry of Justice) and Plang (of the British Council, Nigeria) were unanimous in their submissions at a two-day workshop on: “Stakeholders’ review of implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015,” put together by Prof Akinseye-George’s Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS), which held between November 22 and 23.

    Addressing the opening session, Justice Bello noted that since its coming into force in 2015, the ACJA, with its many innovative provisions, has had positive impact on criminal trials in court where it is currently being applied.

    Justice Bello, who was represented by Justice Abubakar Talba (also of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory), argued that effective application was currently being hampered by poor funding.

    For example, he noted that government’s failure to provide funds to defray witnesses’ expenses has continued to discourage witnesses and negatively impact on criminal trials.

    Justice Bello noted: “Sections 251 to 254 of ACJA provide for witness’ expenses. As important as it is, it has been difficult to implement. The government must provide the funds for witness’ expenses.

    “In my court, a defendant asked for the recall of a prosecution witness. The prosecution agreed to recall the witness, but on the condition that the defendant would bear the cost.

    “The witness was to come from Lagos. The defendant said the ACJA had provided for witness’ expenses. See Section 252 of ACJA. The court could not order payment by the registrar, knowing that the money was not there. That was how the witness could not be recalled,” he said

    The judge, who headed the committee that midwived the Bill leading to the ACJA, hailed the law’s many provisions, which he said, was intended to revolutionise criminal trials in the country, particularly the elimination of delay, by prohibiting stay of proceedings pending interlocutory appeal.

    Justice Bello added: “There has been a lot of improvement in criminal trials, most especially now that there is no stay of proceedings in criminal trials. The Supreme Court has stamped its approval. On this note, I will say, so far so good.”

    He noted that the ACJA has improved bail administration, which he said, allowed defendants, charged with capital offences, to be granted bail “under exceptional circumstances such as ill health, delay in the investigation, arraignment and prosecution for a period exceeding one year.”

    The judge frowned at the abuse of the ex parte  remand order provided for by the ACJA by security agencies, particularly the police.

    He said: “But I must mention that the police are not doing well on issues of remand protocols under Section 293 of ACJA. The police will come to court ex-parte and obtain a remand order.

    “Thereafter, they will abandon the suspects in prison custody for over a year. And, due to his/her workload, it is not easy for the judge to remember each remand order granted.

    “I had that experience in my court. Some of my colleagues had the experience too. These challenges should not be left for the court alone to address. Other stakeholders must have the will and determination to cooperate with the Judiciary in the implementation of the ACJA,” Justice Bello said.

    Prof Akinseye-George urged the committee, recently inaugurated by the National Judicial Council (NJC), to monitor high profile corruption cases, to place, in public domain, the list of high profile cases it is monitoring, for public consumption.

    He added:“The committee now headed by Justice Suleiman Galadima should urgently make its modus operandi public.

    “There have been strident calls by observers that some members of the committee cannot be expected to monitor cases they are defending in the courts. This is a major issue, which must be addressed urgently.”

    Prof Akinseye-George equally called for a closer monitoring of the activities of investigators, prosecutors, witnesses and the dilatory tactics often employed by defence lawyers.

    He said: “The Justices of the Supreme Court must not allow themselves to be persuaded to vary their progressive stance in Olisah Metuh to the effect that: Section 306 of the ACJA (which prohibits stay of proceedings in criminal trial) is not unconstitutional.”

    Prof Akinseye-George sought a deliberate and improved investment of funds, by the government and the NJC, “in improving the welfare of judges, investigators and prosecutors in order to make the less vulnerable to the corrupting influence of high profile defendants.

    “The judges, investigators and prosecutors, working in the specialised courts, dedicated to handle corruption cases, must be well-resourced and adequately protected from the corruption influence of high profile defendants,” he said.

    Mohammed argued that the paucity of funds allocated to the sector has compelled prosecutors from the Federal Ministry of Justice to, in most cases, spend from their personal purse to mobilise witnesses to court and prosecute the cases for the government.

    Represented by Abdullahi Yusuf (also of the Federal Ministry of Justice), Mohammed said; “When you have to use your personal money to prosecute a case for government, the case will suffer.”

    The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), sought the establishment of the implementation monitoring committee provided for by the ACJA.

    He said if such committee was in place it would help to canvass for suitable budgetary allocation before the relevant committees of the National Assembly.

    Mohammed added: “I am appealing to members of the National Assembly to use their good offices to address this challenge.”

    Plang was of the view that a plethora of good legislations in the country have been rendered ineffective due to inadequate funding.

    He argued that an appropriate mechanism must be provided “to ensure that the funds are used for the purposes for which they were meant”, beside the advocacy for enhanced funding of the criminal justice administration sector.

     

  • NBA partners foundation  on ACJA

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has partnered  MacArthur Foundation to enhance the  domestication and  enforcement  of the Administration  of Criminal Justice  Act ( ACJA) 2015, by  the 36 States of the Federation including  the federal capital, Abuja.

    NBA President, Abubakar Balarebe Mahmoud (SAN) disclosed this at a conference on administration of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA)  organized by the association and supported by MacArthur Foundation at Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja, with the theme: “ Promoting the domestication and implementation of the administration of  criminal Justice legislation across Nigeria”

    Mahmoud, in an opening address argued that the domestication of the Act by the states of the federation will serve as  a major attempt to revamp criminal trials because  It introduced several innovative measures to achieve speedy trials as well as shift focus from punitive justice to restorative justice.

    He said the Act also sought to achieve greater balance between the interest of the victims of crime, the society and the defendant and promote more effective collaboration between the various institutions of the criminal justice system.

    “The dysfunctionality of the Nigerian Justice System and in particular, the criminal justice administration is well known to all of us operating in the Justice Sector. Perhaps it is even better known by ordinary citizens who remain at the receiving end of this system. It has long been recognized that unless something was done urgently, the crises in the justice sector could undermine rule of law in the country with grave consequences.

    “To some extent this is already happening, luckily the problem has been receiving concerted attention even if not in sufficiently coherent manner, but clearly, we are making some progress. l

    He said several initiatives have been rolled out to ensure the effective implementation of the policy including the recent constitution by  the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Walter Onnoghen ( CJN) of a committee to monitor trials of corruption and financial crime cases across the country under the chairmanship of Justice Suleiman Galadima JSC (rtd).

    “With respect to Criminal Justice Sector, he said  one of the most important initiatives was the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act on May 13, 2015 by the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. This legislation represents a major attempt to revamp criminal trials. It introduced several innovative measures to achieve speedy trials as well as shift focus from punitive justice to restorative justice. The Act also sought to achieve greater balance between the interest of the victims of crime, the society and the defendant and promote more effective collaboration between the various institutions of the criminal justice system.

    In her good will massage, Amina Salihu of MacArthur Foundation thanked the NBA for the partnership with the foundation.

    She stated that they at the MacArthur foundation  progress is possible on some of the world’s  most pressing social challenges including over- incarceration, global climate change nuclear risk, and increasingly financial capital for the social sector.

    In his good will massage, chairman of the NBA Criminal Justice Reform Committee, chief Arthur Obi -Okafor (SAN) congratulated the NBA president, for  the successful commencement of the project.

    He said the support the NBA received from MacArthur Foundation for the  conference is  part of a three year project for the domestication and implementation of the ACJA in 28 States of Nigeria.

    Obi-Okafor said: “Over the years, the NBA has always been in the vanguard of the advocacy for the reform of the criminal justice system in Nigeria. When the first Administration of Criminal Justice Bill was put together in 2005, the NBA was involved in the process. When the Panel on the Implementation of the Justice Reform was established by the then Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the NBA was represented on the Sub-Group of the Panel on Criminal Justice Reform. To articulate the reform measures needed for an effective and efficient criminal justice system, the NBA has held series of Criminal Justice Reform Conferences.

    “The recommendations from these Conferences formed part of the draft of the ACJA Bill that was presented to the National Assembly.

     

  • ‘ACJA has brought innovations to justice administration’

    ‘ACJA has brought innovations to justice administration’

    Mr. Lawrence Nwakaeti was called to the Bar in 2000. He is the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Owerri branch chairman. In this interview, he shares his views on law and  development, legal education and challenges of law practice, among others, with Legal Editor John Austin Unachukwu.

    Law and development have always gone together, how do you think our laws will assist us to get out of the current economic recession?

    To ensure that the deep dive is not lengthier, we need to be swift, quick and decisive in response to the challenges that confront us as a nation. Laws or legislations are no doubt instruments of help in that direction. For instance, three Acts of Congress signed by two successive presidents between 2008 and 2010 led to the end of the great recession of 2007-2009 in America. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 kick started the renewed economic growth in the United States. That way, they ensured the financial system does not collapse.

     How do you do that?

      You do that by injecting cash into troubled banks and money entering key struggling markets. Also, Troubled Assets Relief Programme with a very strong legislative backing was the second legislative step in the United States to end the recession. It has worked for other countries and it can work for us in Nigeria too. Loan tightening and interest rates would be eased by Troubled Assets Relief program. Then the third, Tax Relief, Unemployed Insurance Re-authorisation and Job Creation Act of 2010 strengthened the economic recovery by cutting the payroll tax and take attention to value added tax and continuing extended unemployment insurance benefits.

     What is the role of the Federal Government in this arrangement?

    The Federal Government also needs to get out of private sector’s way and limit its interference to monitoring and policy formation to protect the common good and ensure there is broad based economic growth. Our decisions need to be targeted, decisive,  not blanket and without focus. Economic growth prospects will be brightened in the true sense of it and not false hope. You will see that job losses will abate quickly through spending activated by the Recovery Act. The passage and very importantly, implementation of Laws that will redirect our attention from over-dependence on crude is also very important.

    People have called for the diversification of the Nigerian economy to develop other sources of foreign exchange than oil, how do you think we can achieve this through our laws?

     The problem with our country is not inadequacy of laws actually. We have plethora of laws that are either not implemented or were made without definite and decisive focus. We have the Nigerian Export Promotion Council Act made to promote the development and diversification of Nigeria’s export trade, assist in promoting the development of export oriented industries in Nigeria and other related matters and several others to diverse Nigerian economy. So, the question that really begs for answer now is how far we have gone to implement these “beautiful” laws that we have. The actual call now is for us to implement policies pointedly beyond craving for more laws.

    How do you feel about the on-going fight against corruption in the Judiciary?

     Fight against corruption is in itself a good fight and should be fought just like the biblical “good fight of faith”. However, the on-going fight against corruption in the judiciary with all due respect and sense of responsibility is not with the right approach. The invasion of the houses of JLaw Personalityudges’ house sometime last year is well known to all of us. But what has come of it? Nothing. Justice Ademola was discharged and acquitted.

    What do you mean by this?

     I mean that the DSS has nothing to do with discipline of judges at least for as long as they remain  Judges. If you look at the Part 1 of the third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, discipline and removal of Judicial Officers is unequivocally vested in the National Judicial Council. That law was made for a purpose and let us allow that purpose to be fulfilled first. May be it is a matter of coincidence, but many of those judges who were subjects of the DSS raid had one or more cases that has to do with the DSS before them for hearing. I don’t want to pre-empt the ones that are yet to be decided but we are all watching. Fight against corruption wherein you adopt media trial strategy may achieve little or nothing. Fight against corruption is not just perceived or imagined. It should be done properly. Do good investigations before arrest and not just to arrest so as to attract public praise when at the end of the day, you dash  the hope of the masses. I am an advocate of fight against corruption in the judiciary because no society can go far with a corrupt judicial system. But what I advise is that the right approach should be adopted paying attention to laid down process of law especially as it relates to Judges because they occupy very sensitive positions in the society, a near sacred one if not sacred.

    How do you think we can fast track justice administration and make our courts more efficient in justice delivery?

    We have to start that by reviewing our procedural laws.

     Thank God for the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015. Section 1 (1) of the Act says, “the purpose of this 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…” It has brought innovations to help fast track justice administration and make our courts more efficient in justice delivery. One of these provisions is section 306 which provides: “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained”. The revolutionary approach can also be found in section 396 (4), (5) and (7) which provides that “Where day-to-day trial is impracticable after arraignment, no party shall be entitled to more than five adjournments from arraignment to final judgment; provided always that the interval between each adjournment shall not exceed fourteen days.

    “Where it is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days inclusive of weekends.

    “Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time. Provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.

    Although this is yet only applicable at the federal level, Lagos has several similar provisions in the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State (ACJL). The various states should start reviewing the applicable Civil and Criminal Procedural Rules and Laws.

    As chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Owerri branch, what have you done to improve the welfare of lawyers in your branch?

    As Chairman of the NBA, Owerri branch, together with all the excos, we decided that the welfare of lawyers at the branch level would not be compromised in any way either in policy making or through any other means. Very importantly, we have tried to ensure that our members partake and benefit from whatever package that is obtainable at the National level. The Bar Affinity Card is another means of welfare benefit and we encourage our members to get the cards. That is why we always encourage our members to do their part by paying their practicing fees and be up-to-date financially at the branch level too so that they can enjoy all benefits.

    Why did you go to court to challenge some policies of Imo State government. What was the judgment of the court?

    To answer the first arm of your question, I will simply say that we went to court to fight the course of Justice and stand firmly against glaring injustice especially for those who appeared defenceless in the society. And may I add that we will continue to fight against any appearance of injustice. More specifically however, we went to court to challenge an ill motivated policy of the state government to short change pensioners as per their pension entitlements by mischievously asking them to fill a form of undertaking on oath waiving their pensions. We stood against that and went to court. Another issue we went to court over was the wrongful dissolution and appointment of new members of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission. To answer the second arm of your question, the Judgment of the court was delivered in our favour and rightly too. The court ordered the state government to pay the pensioners their full entitlements and the mischievous form given to the pensioners was held to be a nullity. The court also held that the members of the Judicial Service Commission as recently constituted by the governor was illegal and declared their appointment a nullity and perpetually restrained those illegally appointed members from being reappointed. The judgment is fair to all concerned for the course of justice.

    The EBF has elected officers to run its affairs for the next two years, what are your expectations from EBF’s new governing council?

    I expect the newly elected officers of the EBF led by my good friend Arthur Elvis Chukwu, to build on the gains and successes of the last administration. We expect them to ensure continued unity of the Forum. The forum has been a pace setter for the other regional fora and we expect to continue that way. We are very ready to contribute in any way possible to achieve the goals of this regional professional body.

  • El-Rufai, Solicitor General urge states to adopt ACJA

    El-Rufai, Solicitor General urge states to adopt ACJA

    Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, Solicitor General of the Federation (SGF), Taiwo Abidogun and Co-Chair, Federal Justice Sector Reform Co-ordination Committee (FJSRC), Prof Muhammed Tabiu (SAN), on Thursday asked more states to adopt the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 because of its many benefits.

    They praised the various innovative provisions contained in the Act, which they note, was capable of eliminating current challenges associated with the criminal justice system in the country.

    El-Rufai, Abidogun and Tabiu spoke in Kaduna at a two-day national sensitization workshop on the ACJA held on July 17 and 18 this year.

    The event was jointly organised by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Kaduna State.

    It was attended by Attorneys General and Commissioners of Justice from the 19 northern states, officials from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Nigerian Prison Service (NPS) and stakeholders from other criminal justice sector institutions.

    El-Rufai described the ACJA as the most important piece of legislation to effectively reform the nation’s justice sector in the last 50 years.

    He said his state has adopted and domesticated the law and was about to commence its implementation.

    He said: “We welcome this model and we are likely going to call on the resource persons to come back to Kaduna to help train officials from the justice sector and sensitize them on the key provisions of this very important law.”

    El-Rufai said Attorneys General from the 19 northern states constituted a committee, on September 18, 2015, to review the Penal code and the Criminal Procedural code.

    He said in adopting the committee’s recommendations, members from the 19 northern states agreed to domesticate the ACJA and undertake a holistic re- writing and re-drafting of the penal code.

    El-Rufai said his state took the lead, among the northern states, with the passage of the two penal codes by the State House of Assembly with effect from May 29 this year.

    Abidogun, who was represented by the Director, Public Prosecution of the Federation (DPPF), Etsu Mohammed, urged stakeholders in the criminal justice sector to collaborate and ensure the success of the various reform measures being introduced to aid the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

    Abidogun tasked states that were yet to reform their criminal justice system to take advantage of the ACJA by adopting same in their states.

    He said: “Presently only six states have enacted their ACJA, while the Houses of Assembly in three states have passed the bill and it awaits the Governors’ assent.”

    Tabiu commended the progress made by Kaduna State Government in its adoption of the ACJA.