The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Criminal Justice Law

Wanted: More funding for Criminal Justice Law

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJL) was enacted in 2015 to advance justice delivery across the country. PRECIOUS IGBOWELUNDU and ADEBISI ONANUGA report that 10 years after, the states are still lagging behind in the implementation of vital sections of the law according to research by a group, CLEEN Foundation, has revealed

A group, CLEEN Foundation , has urged the media to champion reforms in the justice sector by ensuring improved budgetary allocation for effective and efficient implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

The group said media has responsibility to drive reforms in the justice sector by spotlighting issues that have been hampering effective implementation of ACJL and be part of the general advocacy to improve budgetary allocation for effective and efficient implementation of the law.

The acting Executive Director of the foundation, Peter Maduoma stated this while exchanging views with journalists in Lagos at a “Media Advocacy For Increased Budgetary Allocation For Efficient Implementation of ACJL Regime”.

Low budgeting for ACJL implementation decried

The foundation lamented low budgetary allocation for the implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL), particularly in the states.

It, therefore, urged the federating units, particularly states to commit themselves towards ensuring effective justice processes.

Maduoma said the group conducted studies in eight states, including Bauchi, Jigawa, Delta, Cross, River, Edo, Kwara, Sokoto and Katsina.

He said the results showed little or no efforts are being made towards tackling issues affecting the effective implementation of the criminal justice law.

According to him, while 35 states allocated over N245 billion to establishing local security and architecture, purchase of weapons and uniforms in this year’s budget no state put in effort to ensure functionality of the criminal justice system.

It described the situation as a big deficit on the part of the states, noting that it could be assumed that they were starving the criminal justice system of funds in order for them to continue to wield political influence on the judiciary.

Justice for sale?

“So, what we see in most cases is that the deficit in the implementation and the functionality of this law has actually put justice up for sale, and this in itself is one very key gap that we have actually seen.

“So, it therefore means that one of the reasons why the entire independence of the judiciary has become very difficult is because people have some level of weapon, which is actually funding. They regulate funding into that sector just to be able to limit the level of independence for control to continue to advance, and we think it is important for us to put that on the table.

“There are also deficits in infrastructure for efficient dispensation of justice…”

Read Also: Tinubu returns after Europe working visit

What research unveiled

According to the group, none of the states has actually deliberately put in so much to ensure that there is an efficient functionality of the ACJL.

Maduoma said in most of the states, there is a big deficit on the side of the state, and it tells very clearly that this happen because the state itself has some level of political influence on the judiciary generally, and that is why they believe that this idea of supporting and providing budgetary support will actually make it completely independent, therefore becomes very challenging to do the bidding of the political elites.

“But the question that again comes to mind is why is the state very much afraid to adequately resource the implementation of the ACJL?

“If you have said it is very efficient, it’s one of the most modern legislation that will actually reduce the right violations that we see, it will actually reduce infractions, it will reduce violations of human rights, it will reduce and speed up trial, then you are not putting money to allow it to function, then I think it is actually a case of robbing Peter to actually pay Paul, and that is something that we believe requires some level of media interrogation to know why this is the case.

Maduoma said at the national level, they discovered that the 2024 budget provided only a paltry sum of N73million for the implementation of ACJL, “and we think that is not very correct when you are putting over a billion for the renovation of offices.

“So one of the things we have also discovered very clearly is that state level and across board, people rather put money into capital projects that they know has some element of back door, short of diplomacy in terms of what they get out of it, rather than putting it in programmes that reforms the entire system and this in itself calls for a serious concern, and I believe it is very important that we raise some of these observations for state.

ACJMC not established in states

“As a matter of fact, in some states we noticed very clearly that the setting up of the Administrative Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC) that should actually monitor compliance of all the criminal justice actors within the value chain are entirely missing. Some states don’t even have them set up.

“For states where you have them set up, they are not being operated. For some states where you have them being operated, some of them don’t even know where their offices are, and some of them don’t even know what their rules should look like. And we think this is a very big issue that we should put some element of spotlight around in terms of the adequacy of funding for purposes of promoting judicial activism.

“Because judicial activism is one of the elements that will have and allow for a very vast society to function in a robust manner, political elites and particularly those from the executive are not offering that sort of support and independence.

“We noticed very clearly across states that even the parliament and state House of Assembly that also has the responsibility to appropriate and also oversight, are not in any way putting their own energy in those areas just to be able to ensure that they continue to control and manage their entire activities within that particular realm. “We always see the case of where political elites will always put some individuals on the spot because they want to abuse the law, knowing full well that all the infrastructure are non-functional, and that in itself offers them an opportunity to begin to do what is wrong.

“So for 2025, we think the media should actually spotlight on the context of the budget and the content daring to be able to interrogate and begin to ask questions, why are we not putting some element of infrastructure and mobility into the movement of the vehicle of operationalising of this particular law.

“We noticed very clearly that the entire value chain and the processes within this law are stated in that particular act and the law are not being complied with, both from the backdrop of the criminal justice actors, which is particularly the police, the court in itself and of course even the consular facilities. And we noticed that there are disparities in terms of coordination among them, even the knowledge of it.

Criminal justice actors don’t cite ACJL

Maduoma said in most of the states researched, they realised that over 70 per cent of criminal justice actors and stakeholders have never cited the law in the first place and we believe very clearly that this is an area where the media also has some level of responsibility, ensuring that we advance not just the content, but of course that this particular law in itself does exist, and if it existed, what exactly should they be doing with it? And a number of them don’t even know why. And that is a reason why we realised that the conduct of most of the law enforcement agents has not not changed, despite the existence of all of these laws.

Arrest, detention procedures neglected

Maduoma said for instance that the law stipulates very clearly a procedure that must be put in place before an arrest is made and that it has a procedure for detention, investigation, and all of these infrastructures and procedures are not thoroughly compliant with it. He lamented that this happens because none of them is aware of the existence of this law.

“Two, they are not even ready to do it in the first place. Most of the Police Commands where we have visited, we have had to donate soft copies to most of the state infrastructure and state agencies for a particular law that they designed in that particular state. So we have had to donate to them.

“And in some states, the laws in itself have actually required some level of evaluation and review, and nobody is actually doing anything about it. So there are also the issues around the performance of the law, which is something that we need to deal with.

Need for constant review of ACJL by ACJMC

Maduoma said the law also requires some monitoring and evaluation and that the ACJMC has a responsibility to monitor, report and request for constant review, but because they were not there,

“So what we now see in most cases is that the deficit in the implementation and the functionality of this law has actually put justice up for sale, and this in itself is one very key gap that we have actually seen.

“ACJMC in most states, like I mentioned, are not existing and in areas where they exist, they are inactive, and are poorly resourced.

Plea bargain is unfair practice

Maduoma decried the plea bargaining practice recognised by the criminal justice system, stating that it has been bastardised and turned into a chesspit of corruption, extortion and miscarriage of justice.

He also argued that plea bargain is unfair as it does not allow full punishment to be served for criminal offences committed.

“Plea bargain has been bastadised and become a weapon in the hands of defence counsels and prosecuting agencies.

“They now use it as an avenue to escape justice. At a point in the course of investigation and trial, they quickly introduce plea bargain. Once that happens, you no longer get to be entirely prosecuted through the Court. It is supposed to be an avenue for justice to be served but at the end of the day, they made it a win-win situation for offenders and prosecution.’

Separate office of AG, Justice Minister

The rights advocacy group expressed the need to unbundle the office of the Minister/Commissioner for Justice and that of the Attorney- General.

Maduoma said except this is done, political elites would continue to use it to advance their interests.

“The office of the Attorney-General and Minister and Commissioner for Justice should be separated. Combining them would allow the AG to wield too much power.

“Our own advocacy is to separate the office into two”, he stressed.

How not to make arrest

“The law provides very clearly that even at the point of arrest, that when you interrogate a particular suspect, that suspect should be interrogated with some element of convenience.

“One is that you must have an interrogation room that is conducive, where you have digital equipment that will help the person to be able to function properly, and that of course eliminates this growing concern that suspect will actually plead as an alibi in court to say that they actually gave those statements under duress. “The law says there be some kind of recording devices across this value chain, but we can only report that only one state in Katsina actually has that particular interrogation room that is modernised, that is well-equipped.

Courts not digitalised

“The law actually recognises that people can actually give their own witnesses, whether as principal witness from the remote areas, just to reduce vulnerability on their side, but most of the courts are not actually doing that either, and they are not investing in it. In fact, they say, even for purposes of a speedy trial, that you should digitalise court processes. But again, we are not seeing that happen. People are still going manual, and that is why it is easier for case files to actually go missing.

Delay in justice dispensation

The issue basically is that this generally creates a delay in the dispensation of justice. And we believe that there is a need to quickly begin to reverse this trend, and that there is need to deal with it very clearly.

Correctional centres haven of organised crimes

Maduoma said findings revealed that correctional centres have become crime-safe, both crimes and most organised crime as a matter of fact.

“Most serious and organised crimes are actually most times organised from custodial facilities. And there are quite a number of evidence that also has to do with it. But the question is, how has the state translated those evidence into queries for those who lead these agencies to also begin to respond to them, and therefore we can now say, okay, these are the complaints we have made.

“A number of us are very much involved, particularly have reported on the recent saga with the procurement of bed spaces and sales. And we realise very clearly that at the end of the day, that issue naturally died without any form of advancement. The National Assembly settled an investigation around it, and we didn’t see any form of advancement around it.So, it therefore, tells you very clearly that some backdoor channels and short-term diplomacy had come in.

“The question the media should be asking is, just to be able to get a report, what is the final report from that incident?

Convicts escaping from custody

The group recalled that a particular committee led by an NGO actually submitted a report, but again they made some observations that they believed were not substantive enough, but we didn’t have the energy to follow up. So we now have a record of increased cases of suspects who are also escaping from police facilities in some of the states.

“The question is, is it an issue of infrastructure, is it an issue of connivance, is it an issue of the fact that our infrastructures are not secure enough? And the idea here is when criminals or suspects leave facilities when their time is not there, that it actually creates additional risk on the larger society, and this is something we need to deal with.

Maduoma said investigation and prosecution are also poorly executed, and in most cases we realise that investigators and prosecutors don’t even have adequate interaction, and this in itself puts the state in a very difficult situation to win cases.

“There’s a particular state where one of the defence counsel apparently mentioned very clearly that in that particular case, the state was actually meant to win the case, because it was a case that bordered around GBV, the evidence was very substantial, but because the state does not have the capacity to hire experienced lawyers, so they only have very young, inexperienced people who they now make prosecutors, and these people go to court to defend cases against very experienced people in the defence line, and that was how the state lost.

We realized very clearly that on the serial cases, the state has consistently lost cases. In a way it became very evident that they should have won, but they have lost, but because the state has failed or they have refused to invest in the cases of hiring experienced hands in all of these boundaries, and that for us is something that we think requires a little bit of an additional effort.

No forensic experts in states

The Cleen director said states don’t have forensic experts anymore, that will be able to help determine and help the adjudication of a particular case, and those forensic experts, a number of them are just in the private practise and require a lot of money, and this also has continued to create a little bit of an issue.

Absence of profilers

He said profilers within the criminal justice actors are also completely gone. I think the last profiler that Nigerian police force has retired recently. So why is this the case when we don’t have it.

“ So it therefore now means that the entire system is actually very vulnerable and we need to put additional effort into it.

Failing mental health

The group lamented that the mental health of most of those within the sector is also a little bit of an issue because of the kind of thing they encounter periodically. They submitted: “resourcing and putting funds in that particular sector is actually something that is very urgent. Poor monitoring platforms exist, weak accountability is something that we think also is an issue that requires media interrogation.

Executives weaponised judicial welfare for political gain

The group remarked that the national and state houses of assemblies are not providing immediate appropriations and oversight, and we think this requires a little bit of an update. And the executives have also weaponised judicial welfare for political gain, and this is what they are doing not to advance their own political interests.

So what is the role of local government authorities within this local government autonomy in the issue of criminal justice engagement? This is where the issue of true federalism begins to creep in, and I think the media should take a lead in terms of how to interrogate some of these functionalities and layers of response. The group said the Judicial Council doing to try to rescue some of these setbacks? We have not seen quite a whole lot. And we think that the media and civil society need to remain consistent.

Poor knowledge among criminal justice actors

The group lamented that there is also a poor knowledge among criminal justice actors, and that there is also lack of proper budget design that allows the state to be able to have a plan of action, maybe three to five years funding plan for judicial reform or sometimes for the implementation of the ACJL. We notice that there is no strategic direction for ACJL implementation, and that for us we think is something that requires a little bit of an issue.

States archiving ACJL

The group said there is absence of documentation that is acceptable, or like a policy thrust that you can reference to say this is actually the kind of direction that the state is going as regards to this year’s implementation.

“What we have noticed very clearly in most states is that they have only archived the law, they just want to meet the national minimum standard of having the law at the state level where the implementation is actually taking a back seat.

“There is apparently no availability of ACJL copies within the criminal justice institutions, and we think that this is not meant to be.

Why states must drive ACJL awareness

The group argued that states should drive the process of awareness, and that state media platforms should also have some regular programming in terms of how citizens are very knowledgeable on the subject matter.

“There is also absence of documentaries that also allow for states, states only wait for development partners to come and put money in judicial reform, and we think this is actually a very terrible practise. Sustaining judicial development is actually something that the state should take a lead in driving, not waiting for some interventions from some global space.

Actions require from the media

The group urge the media to help “ inform the people more, do a little bit of additional analysis into the entire value chain of the law, and why it is very valuable, regular features, content, territories around this.

“Maybe some actual investigative reporting on the subject might help, and the persistence and the consistency of what we do might also be an issue, and then of course how we do this will also help.

Maduoma said the monitoring and implementation of the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria, particularly also the level of which it is happening in Lagos in general itself is the responsibility of the media.

He stressed readiness of the group to always engage with the media to advance the work that it was doing under the Makassar project.

Maduoma also said that the media has a lot of responsibility in raising public awareness about the Administration of Criminal Justice Act ( ACJL) 2015.

“Journalists must have interest in reporting and analysing ACJL, journalists must take interest in reporting and give analysis of ACJL

Accelerating judicial processes

Giving further explanation on the research, CLEEN Foundation’s Programme Director, Dr. Salaudeen Hashim, said adequate funding of the ACJL implementation would accelerate judicial processes, reduce backlog, and ensure that litigations were not unduly prolonged by intermediate appeals.

“The question that again comes to mind is: why, therefore, is the state very much afraid to adequately resource the implementation of the ACJL?

“I think it is actually a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that is something that we believe requires some level of media interrogation to know why this is the case. At the national level we saw very clearly that the 2024 budget provided only a paltry sum of N73 million for the implementation of ACJL, and we think that is not very correct. When you are setting aside over a billion naira for the renovation of offices.

“So, one of the things we have also discovered very clearly is that state level and across board, people rather put money into capital projects that they know has some element of back door, in terms of what they get out of it, rather than putting it in programmes that reforms the entire system and this in itself calls for a serious concern.

Role of the Media must create awareness

The group said awareness raising around the realities of not implementing the ACJL, is very key. Raising the awareness about the incoherence in implementation in most states is very fundamental. Raising the awareness about good practise in select states also fundamental.

Maduoma said there is need to also track and report the impact of not implementing this law on citizens, because this is actually very key. How do we therefore also leverage platforms and reach most of these stakeholders within the value chain to coordinate, collaborate and communicate with each other in terms of how this law can function better.

“We need to highlight the corrupt practices that undermine the implementation of this law, and I think this is very key.

“Promoting voices that seek for the eradication of justice for the rich alone, I think is becoming very increasing. We need to also find a way to put a spotlight on that, and we need to eliminate undue political influence on this transition of justice, and we need to create a regular forum where interactions like this can happen, so that we can also put some alternatives out there.

The group urged the media to take more interest in the in-depth reporting and analysis of this year’s implementation, and how the state must also see the need to advance funding for that particular centre.

He said the media must also regularly report on issues that are helpful to collaborate for purposes of reaching a functional or global standard, because of course the country is becoming a little bit of a mockery within the committee of nations, because of how our laws are designed.

According to the group, the need for the interface with the media was borne out of a , urged the media to continue to spotlight issues that were hampering the ACJA, noting that power the media wields in driving reforms.

April 22, 2025
Murder of husband: lawyer asks court to reject her confessional statement

Justice Adedayo Akintoye will on April 11 rule whether or not to conduct a trial-within-trial on the confessional statement made by a female lawyer, Udeme Otike-Odibi, standing trial for the murder of her lawyer-husband, Symphorosa Odibi.

Justice Adedayo fixed the date after taking submissions from counsel in the matter.

At resumed proceeding on Thursday, Otike-Odibi’s counsel, Mr Oluseye Banjoko, prayed the court not to conduct a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of two confessional statements allegedly made by her during police investigations.

He urged the court to reject the alleged confessional statements pointing out that the provision of the law was not followed.

He told the court that the statements were not obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 93 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) of Lagos State, 2015.

Banjoko argued that the constitution provided that the statement of any person arrested must be made in the presence of a lawyer or videoed to ensure transparency.

He said the request by the defence was to avoid a waste of time in conducting a trial-within-trial to determine admissibility of statements.

The Prosecutor, Lagos State Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Titilayo Shitta-Bey (DPP), represented by Babatunde Sunmonu, submitted that the constitution provided that the substantive law to be adhered to in determining the admissibility of any piece of evidence would be the Evidence Act.

Sunmomu said that the ACJL on which the defence counsel was leaning on was a procedural law which could not supercede the evidence act.

To buttress his submission, Sunmonu cited two Court of Appeal cases which included Chijioke Emmanuel versus Federal Republic of Nigeria decided April 2018 saying that the appellate court in the matter held that the provisions of the evidence act should be followed in proving the admissibility of any piece of evidence.

He said the Court of Appeal went further to state that Section 93 of ACJL was only relevant to the weight to be attached to the admissibility of any evidence after a trial-within-trial had been conducted.

He therefore urged the court to proceed with the trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of the statements allegedly made by Otike-Odibi.

Responding on points of law, Banjoko said that the cases which the prosecution cited during their argument did not comply with the provisions of Section 14 of the Evidence Act which stated that “evidence obtained in contravention of a law is inadmissible”.

Banjoko, urged the court to consider his arguments.

The prosecution also replied the defence on points of law and argued that it is not how evidence was obtained that determines its admissibility.

“So far allegations of torture, incitement, or inducement were not mentioned, whether there was video recording or presence of a lawyer during statement taking, such will not render the statement in-admissible”.

After listening to the submissions of counsel, Justice Akintoye adjourned the matter till April 11 for ruling.

Udeme Otike-Odibi was arraigned on June 13, 2018, on a two-count charge of murder of her husband, Symphorosa, and misconduct with regard to his corpse.

According to the prosecutor, Udeme stabbed Symphorosa, also a lawyer, to death and mutilated his corpse by cutting off his genitals, on May 3, 2018.

The prosecutor alleged that the defendant committed the offences at their residence on Diamond Estate, Sangotedo, Lekki, Lagos State.

She said that the offences contravened Sections 165 (b) and 223 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.

Udeme, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

March 21, 2019
Making criminal justice law work in Bauchi

The Bauchi Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has held its Law Week, reports Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU.

More states are domesticating the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015, and Bauchi is not left out.

The law is before the Bauchi House of Assembly. Governor Mohammed Abubakar said he returned the bill to the lawmakers for their further input.

Speakers at the yearly law week of the Bauchi Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) brainstormed on how to make the law work.

Speaking at the opening, Abubakar described the ACJA as a revolutional legislation.

He was represented by the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Mr. Haruna D. Mohammed.

The governor said the ACJA provides the basic legal frameworks and answers to some of the knotty issues confronting criminal Justice administration in the country.

He said: “The Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Bauchi State will as much as possible address the local challenges facing us as a people.

“As a lawyer, I made some observations in the bill presented to me for assent and sent it back to the state legislature, which I believe will do a great job and return same to me for assent.

“By the time we finally adopt the law, our people will see the difference; it will go a long way in decongesting our courts.”

‘Why ACJA was enacted’

In his presentation, Justice A. R. Mohammed of the Federal High Court said said the ACJA was applicable to the trial of all offences created by an Act of the National Assembly.

Besides, he said the 17 states, which have passed the ACJL, relied heavily on the ACJA.

“The ACJA was signed into law by

President Goodluck Jonathan in May 2015. Before then, the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) were the laws that dominated the Nigerian’s criminal justice framework.

“These laws were inherited from the erstwhile British colonial administration.

“At Independence in 1960, the CPA continued to apply in the Southern states of Nigeria whilst the CPC held sway in the Northern states.

“Several factors compelled the change from the old criminal procedure laws (CPA and CPC) to the new one (ACJA).

“These include delay in the dispensation of justice, congested dockets of the courts, abuse of arrest powers by the police, excessive use of imprisonment due to lack of alternatives, congestion of prisons and high population of Awaiting Trial Persons (ATPs), lack of Witness protection, and above all, highly technical and outdated procedures.

“But the most notorious feature of the old criminal procedure system was that it was highly susceptible to abuse and manipulation through the use of interlocutory appeals and stay of proceedings.”

According to Justice Mohammed, these seriously undermined the ability of the courts to conclude trials which involved high profile defendants.

These defendants, he said, were able to delay their trials for several years through the filing of various interlocutory applications and appeals which delayed the substantive criminal proceedings.

“In Joshua Dariye v. FRN,3 the Supreme Court condemned the eight years delay of the trial of the defendant through the means of interlocutory appeals.

“The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 attempts to address the above-mentioned challenges of the criminal justice system,” he said.

ACJA’s features

On the features of the ACJA, Justice Mohammed said: “The ACJ Act reforms and merges the most essential provisions of the two principal legislations, the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) into one principal Federal Act which is intended to apply uniformly in all federal courts across the entire federation.

“While building upon the existing framework of criminal justice administration in the country, it fills some of the gaps observed in the old criminal procedure laws over the course of several decades and introduces innovative provisions.”

On the purpose of the Act, he said: “The CPA and CPC did not specifically state the purposes which the laws were intended to serve.

“But the ACJA in section 1 (1) provides that ‘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, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, the defendant, and the victim’.

“Thus the system of criminal justice administration will not merely punish the offender for the offence committed; the system will also consider the rights and interests of all the stakeholders of the criminal justice system: the society, the suspect, the defendant, the victim.”

ACJA’s purpose

Justice Mohammed believes the speedy dispensation of justice is ACJA’s purpose.

“Delay is endemic in the administration of justice in Nigeria.

“It is, therefore, common for the members of the public to openly express their concern over the problem of delay.

“The ACJA is aimed at addressing this concern amongst others.

“This objective of the Act with respect to the speedy dispensation of justice is in conformity with the provision of section 36 (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to the effect that, ‘whenever a 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 Act in section 1 (2) imposes a duty on all criminal justice institutions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law for the realisation of its above-mentioned purposes,” he said.

Enforceability

Justice Mohammed said the ACJA is enforceable by all federal and FCT courts for trial of offences created by Acts of the National Assembly, except Court Martial.

“In Saraki v FRN, the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) rightly upheld the applicability of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act to the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

“He rejected the contention that the Tribunal not being a court cannot take refuge under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015,” Justice Mohammed stated.

He took time to look at the provisions of the Act and how the amendments would ensure speedy dispensation of justice in the country.

CJ hails branch

Chief Judge of Bauchi State, Justice Rabi T. Umar described the theme of the Law Week, which bordered on tackling challenges of the Administration of criminal justice law, as timely.

This, she said, was because the law was in the process of being domesticated in the state.

She said the law would “pave way for speedy, smooth, judicious and technicalities free criminal justice administration”.

The CJ expressed optimism that the lawmakers would come up with a bill that will be “one of the best, if not the best in the country in line with international best practices”.

“I have observed with keen interest positive improvement of the NBA Bauchi Branch by the successive leadership in general and the present executive committee in particular.

“A befitting NBA secretariat was set up with functional office equipment which I commissioned on December 22, 2017 as part of the 2017 Legal Year Ceremony.

“The unity, brotherhood and camaraderie existing among the members of the Bar is highly commendable.

“Harmonious working relationship existing between the Bar and the Bench is heartwarming as both are important stakeholders in Administration of Justice.”

Boosting workers’ morale

Justice Umar highlighted some of her achievements in office.

“The Judiciary under my watch always strives hard to maintain highest level of professionalism, work ethics, decorum and discipline.

“Welfare and career progression of judicial staff are given utmost priority by prompt promotion and approval for further studies of deserved staff.

“Issues of discipline are promptly attended to, investigated and where necessary the recalcitrant staff are sanctioned.

“Professionalism is accorded its rightful place as no fewer than 14 Shariah Judges who are lawyers were elevated to Upper Shariah Court,” Justice Umar said.

The branch chairman Mr. Mohammed Maidoki appreciated the State Governor for his contributions to the success of the law week.

He thanked the Chief Judge for personally attending the programme, and vowed that the Bar would continue to work harmoniously with the Bench.

January 8, 2019
‘Kano to domesticate criminal justice law’

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 will soon be domesticated in Kano State, the State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Mr. Ibrahim Mukhtar has said.

He spoke during the a Legislative Advocacy and Sensitisation Workshop on the Domestication and implementation of the ACJA, organised by the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) in collaboration with the MacArthur Foundation.

NBA First Vice-President and Chairman of the association’s Human Rights Institute, Mr. Caleb Dajan, who represented NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), said he was pleased that Kano was about to domesticate the law.

He urged stakeholders to cooperate towards achieving its speedy passage and domestication.

The project coordinator, Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, noted that before the enactment ACJA, states operated either the Criminal Penal Code (CPC) or the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

He said the old laws were unable to deal with the challenges of long adjournments, congestion, over reliance on technicalities, corruption, collapsing infrastructure, among others.

“ACJA is aimed at promoting the efficient management of the criminal justice system in Nigeria, speedy dispensation of justice and protection of the interests of both the suspect and victim of crime.

“For these to be achieved, the law needs to be adopted by all states in the federation to ensure uniformity, clarity and better justice administration,” he said.

Mukhtar said the draft bill includes provisions to ensure that torture is eliminated in the process of investigation.

“We didn’t have any criminal justice law in the state but when I came in, with the approval of my Governor, I set up a 16 member committee which I chair because of its importance.

“The purpose was to look at the existing Criminal Procedure Code and the new ACJA provisions with the hope that we will have a better criminal procedure law combining both the old and new innovations to have the best law in the country,” Mukhtar told our reporter.

Kano’s 10-man Monitoring and Implementation Committee was inaugurated by Dajan.

They are Mohammed Inuwa Musa (Chairman), Sagir Sulaiman (Secretary), Mustapha Imam, Salisu Marmara, Sanusi Maáji, Ekwe Osogu (A deputy superintendent of police), Hussaina Ibrahim, Hauwa Jauro, Basiru Yunusa and M.M Gambo.

Prof. A.B Ahmed, who represented Prof. Muhammed Tabiu (SAN), described the ACJA as a wonderful legislation and a great reform in the development of the criminal justice system in Nigeria.

“The ACJA is the result of various consultations on the failure of the CPC and CPA and proceeded to combine both,” he said.

February 13, 2018
‘Administration of Criminal Justice Law’ll respect civil liberties’

Adamawa State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Mr S. S. D. Sanga has said the state would continue to work on the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) untill civil liberties of individuals are respected.

Sanga stated this in Yola during a chat with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) – MacArthur Foundation Team led by project coordinator, Abdul Rasheed Muritala, after a one-day legislative advocacy and sensitisation workshop.

The NBA MacArthur project team was in Yola in continuation of its nationwide sensitisation programme for states that are yet to adopt the ACJA as their procedural law for the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.

Sanga said: “It is bad policies and failure that necessitated the ACJL. If the Nigeria Police do their work, why do we have congestion in prisons? States cannot legislate on the police because it is a federal agency. Most of the problems why ACJA came up is the failure of the system.

“If you are doing a good investigation you won’t arrest anybody before investigation. The police arrest you, take you to an Area Customary Court and charge you for wandering.

“However, when we pass our own Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) it will take care of all these short falls and we will regularly enter Nolle Prosequi to free people who are detained unjustly for minor criminal offences which at times do not exist in our laws in the first place. We have lots of people arrested by the army not yet handed over to the police but still with the army.

“We continue to work on it. We want to see civil liberties respected, that is the nature of the job and the Bar and development partners have a lot of role to play in this. I am happy at this partnership and we will create the right agencies to drive the law because if you make a law without a proper agency to monitor it, then it likely to face abuses.”

Chairman NBA Yola Branch, Mr. Everastus Odo, who welcomed participants, appreciated the NBA for choosing Adamawa State for the workshop.

He expressed optimism that at the end of the programme, the state would experience a smooth implementation of the Act.

First Vice-President NBA, Mr. Caleb Dajan, who represented NBA President A. B. Mahmoud (SAN), congratulated the two NBA branches in Adamawa State for the choice of their state as one of the phase one states to host the workshop.

He stressed the importance of the ACJA in the Criminal Justice System, stating that it was the association’s desire that at the end of the day, the aim of the workshop will not only be achieved, but contributions made will lead to a smooth implementation of the Act in Adamawa State.

Abdul-Rasheed stated that the criminal justice system in Nigeria is bedevilled with several challenges including long adjournment of cases, congestion, long delays in the adjudicatory process, over reliance on technicalities, collapsing infrastructure, corruption in the system, congestion in courts and prisons, poverty of knowledge, culture of impunity and declining confidence of the citizenry in the efficacy and efficiency of justice institutions.

He urged Adamawa to lead other states in the Northeast zone in the passage of the ACJA bill to law.

Muritala said: “Adamawa State is blessed with human capital who have all it takes to lead in the promulgation of laws that will promote access to justice, which the ACJ law when enacted represents.

“The NBA-MacArthur project will on its part, vigorously pursue the training and retraining of judicial officers, lawyers and other stakeholders in the justice sector in this state on the innovation introduced by the ACJA through its institute of Continue Legal Education (ICLE) with a view to making them friendlier with the users of the institutions of justice.”

Justice N. Musa, who represented the Chief Judge of Adamawa State, Justice Ishaya K. Banu, commended the NBA for the workshop and encouraged active participation and contribution from all participants.

Senior Lecturer, Nigerian Law School, Yola Campus, Mr. James Agaba, gave an overview of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

According to Agaba, Section 2(1) is ambiguous and needs to be better couched for better interpretation. He urged states willing to emulate ACJA to take a more critical look at the provisions of sections 221, 222, 306 and 396 of the ACJA.

“There is also need for providing adequate infastructure for the implementation of the law,” Agaba added.

February 6, 2018
Overview of administration of criminal justice law
- Continued from last week
Now the ACJL recognised this as an embarrassment and major cause of delays in criminal trials and therefore directs in Section 74 (1) ACJL that the Commissioner of Police “shall forward all duplicate case files with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Attorney-General for the purpose of issuance of legal advice”.

However the ACJA took this further by imposing time frames to ensure prompt issuance of legal advice and aid speedy trials. Section 376 (1) imposed an obligation on the police to forward the casefile of investigations in respect of an offence the magistrate has no jurisdiction to try to the Attorney-General of the Federation to issue legal advice within 14 days of the receipt of the case file indicating whether or not there is a prima facie case against the defendant for which he can be prosecuted. Copies of such legal advice must be served on the police, the court and the suspect involved.

The elaborate prescriptions for time limits for the issuance of legal advice by the Attorney-General will greatly help the decongestion of our prisons and facilitate expeditious trials as ACJA also provides that the suspect should be released unconditionally if he is not charged to court after 56 days upon with or without an application by his legal practitioner and no further application for remand shall be entertained in the matter. See Section 296 ACJA.

Simplification of bail processes:

The ACJL now makes provisions in Sections 118 (3), 119 and 138 respectively to ease bail burden on suspects which are at times overwhelming and almost impossible to discharge. The provisions are:

No person shall be denied or prevented or restricted from entering into any recognizance or standing as suretry or providing any security on the ground that the person is a woman.

A Judge may, if he thinks fit, admit any person charged before a Magistrate Court to bail although the Court before whom the Charge was made has not thought it fit to do so.

The Chief Judge may, by regulation, register and license individuals or corporate bodies or persons to act as Bondspersons within the jurisdiction of the Court in which they are registered.

See Sections 167 (3) and 187 (1) of ACJA for similar provisions.

We consider these provisions very important as one of the factors which account for prison congestion and long trials is the inability of suspects to meet their bail conditions. Any simplification of the process that the extant law proposes to facilitate the early release of persons in custody is a welcome development. Bondspersons will help all and sundry as it will eliminate the need for every accused person to have personal sureties who will meet the specifications of the conditions of bail.

Remand proceedings

Section 291 to 296 of ACJA provides for remand proceedings and time limit.

The point to note is that Section 293 of ACJA generally provides that upon an application ex parte by the police in the prescribed form a magistrate may order the remand of a suspect pending the receipt of the Legal advise of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Section 296 ACJA imposes time limits of 14 days on four different accounts for the prosecution to take steps to prosecute the suspect and where that is not done for a cumulative 56 days, the magistrate is empowered to release the suspect from prison custody unconditionally. See Section 296 (6) (7) and Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 538.

There is the major advantage that this provision will prevent the pre-trial process from dragging on and shortening time spent ‘awaiting DPP’s advice’, promote prompt arraignment before the trial court and help decongest our prisons.

Abolition of lay prosecutors:

Constitutionally the Attorney-General of the Federation and of the federating States are vested with the powers to prosecute offenders personally or through the legal officers in the Justice Ministry.

However the prosecutorial powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies like the EFCC, ICPC, NDLEA have been recognised and assured by the enabling Act establishing these agencies albeit subject to the overriding power of the Attorney-General to takeover or discontinue any such proceedings at any time before judgement.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria had held in the two landmark cases of Olusemo v. the Commissioner of Police (1998) II NWLR (pt 575), 547 and Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Osahon (2006) that the power to prosecute is not limited to the Attorney General alone. A police officer and any such other person or body who has been statutorily clothed with the power to prosecute can do so but subject of course to the Attorney General’s power to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person. In exercising these powers, the constitution granted the Attorney General the latitude and wide discretion as he shall only have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process and the Attorney General alone determines when and in what circumstances to act.

Therefore the fact that the EFCC and ICPC and other such bodies as NAFDAC and NDLEA have the power to prosecute before the enactment of ACJL and ACJA is a moot point. See further Customs and Excise v. Senator Barau (1982) 2 N.C.R. 1 and Unipetrol Plc. v. E.S.B.I.R (2006) Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 114. The Supreme Court even widened the frontiers, pronouncing in Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Togun (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797 that a private citizen had the locus, which is the standing to prosecute or file an information after an application endorsed by the Attorney-General.

However, it now appears that the tables have turned. By the relevant provision of the Lagos Law and ACJA, police lay prosecutors are to be abolished. By the provisions of ACJL trials should be held in the High court on information filed by a Law Officer or Private Prosecutor.

Section 253 ACJL categorically provides that “information shall be signed by a Law Officer”. The implied interpretation of this is that since a criminal trial can only be commenced at the High Court by an information, which can only be signed by a Law Officer, the policeman, even if learned in law, not being a Law Officer is thus excluded from prosecuting at the Lagos High Court.

The ACJA made similar provisions in Section 106 to the effect that the prosecution of all offences in any Court shall be undertaken by the Attorney-General of the Federation or a law officer in his ministry, a legal practitioner authorized by him to prosecute or a legal practitioner authorized by ACJA or any Act of the National Asasembly to prosecute.

It should be obvious that by this provision, any police officer or public official who is not a qualified legal practitioner cannot prosecute in the Federal High Court, the High Court and the Magistrate Courts of the Federal Capital Territory.

Ostensibly this provision was made to cure the apparent incapacity of lay prosecutors to respond to vital issues of law raised for determination by legal practitioners appearing for defendants in criminal trials, delay by lay prosecutors who never seem to have their witnesses on hand and the alarming failure of lay prosecutors to secure convictions in many simple cases especially at the magistrate courts.

Legal aid

Section 74 (6) ACJL prescribed a State-run free legal services to a suspect in the form of the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) when it states that “a form indicating a desire to be represented by counsel of his choice or the Office of the Public Defender, Legal Aid Council or any other organisation providing legal aid shall be attached to each legal advice for purpose of endorsement by the person in respect of whom legal advice is preferred”.

The OPD has such powers as: (a) The provision of legal aid services and advice; (b) To receive complaints from individuals or by referrals from government and private institutions; (c) Investigate complaints and referrals made to it and to prepare necessary legal documents; (d) Negotiate settlements or give necessary legal advice in alternative dispute resolutions, etc.

On the other hand Section 17 (2) of ACJA provides for the desirability of recording a suspect’s extra-judicial statement in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice or an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, or an official of a Civil Society Organisation or a Justice of the Peace or any other person of his choice.

Whilst both Laws recognised the traditional role of the Legal Aid Council in providing legal aid services to indigent Nigerians, the Lagos Law took it further by widening the scope and bringing in OPD which operations have enabled the provision of free legal services in respect of criminal and civil matters to indigent residents of Lagos State without regards to tribe, race or religion.

Conclusion

The Government of Lagos State and the Federal Government ought to be commended for the long overdue overhaul of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. A few states of the Federation have followed suit and those who have not done so have been urged to adopt and or domesticate the model federal law in their jurisdiction of competence.

A crime free society is a prosperous society where economic and social development is assured so this attempt at galvanising an efficient and effective administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is one that all stakeholders and every Nigerian must embrace and work assiduously towards the realisation of the objectives of the Federal and State Laws.
- Obajaja, a Lagos-based legal practitioner, is the immediate past Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Lagos Branch.
- Concluded
January 16, 2018
Overview of administration of criminal justice law
Plea bargain and sentence agreements

Plea bargaining gained traction in Nigeria with the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission even though there was no clear provision for it in Nigeria at the time. The ACJL has now specifically provided for plea bargain in Section 76 thus: “notwithstanding anything in this Law or in any other law, the Attorney-General of the state shall have power to consider and accept a plea bargain from a person charged with any offence where the Attorney-General is of the view that the acceptance of such plea bargain is in the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent the abuse of legal process”.

Simply put, plea bargain means the negotiation of an agreement between the prosecution and the defence whereby the Defendant is allowed to plead guilty to a lesser/reduced offence/charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence or an agreement to drop other charges against the Defendant.

The ACJL also allows the prosecutor and the defendant or his legal practitioner to enter into a plea bargain agreement before the plea is taken subject to the overriding discretion of the judge who will however not participate in the negotiations.

Section 270 of ACJA has similar provisions that will extend to non-custodial sentencing including parole, suspended sentence and community service.

Plea bargain saves time and resources, reduces the trauma to the victims, aid prison decongestion, helps case management, reduces the number of inmates awaiting trial. In the same vein, non-custodial sentencing helps decongest our prisons and allow convicts to contribute to societal good in terms of community service.

Collection, storage of data and record of arrests

Section 20 (1) ACJL requires that “officers in charge of Police station shall report to the nearest Magistrate the cases of all persons arrested without warrant within the limits of their respective station whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not and the Chief Magistrate shall notify the Chief Registrar of the High Court of such report who shall forward the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for necessary actions”.

The ACJL further directs that “the Commissioner of Police shall remit to the Office of the Attorney-General a record of all arrests made with or without a warrant in relation to state offences within one week of the arrest”.

ACJA made similar provisions to the effect that the police takes a full inventory of every arrested person, including the persons physical and biometric data within 48 hours. This is to prevent unreasonable pre-trial detention by the police and other law enforcement agencies. See Section 15 (1) & (2) ACJA.

There is established in Section 16 (1) ACJA a Central Criminal Records Registry at the Police Force where all information of all persons who encounters the criminal justice processes are stored and managed. Section 16 (2) creates Criminal Record Registry in all State commands, where all the data collected of all arrested persons from the police posts and divisions are transmitted to the State Command Registry and then collated and stored at the Central Registry at the force headquarters.

A critical provision is Section 16 (3) ACJA which makes it mandatory for the police to ensure that the decision of the Court in all criminal trials are transmitted to the Central Criminal Records Registry within thirty days of delivery of the judgement.

Imagine what it will mean for the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria if this little effort at registration of criminal convictions or acquittals are made! The prosecution will know who and what they are dealing with from day one. The defence counsel can no longer cast every serial offender as an innocent person making his first and unintended transgression against the Law. Above all, everyone could search the registry as you would at the Corporate Affairs Commission and easily overcome the problem of information asymmetry in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.

According to Chino Obiagwu, the Executive Director of Legal Defence and Assistance Project in his piece “ACJ Act 2015: New Face of Federal Criminal Justice Administration”, “this is an innovation that would improve crime prevention and management in the country. It requires strong political will of the police leadership and other federal justice sector institutions leaders to fully implement it. It will be very useful to have strong coordination and increased exchange of data including harmonisation of biometric information among the security and other electronic data sources including telecommunications, banks, customs, passport and immigration offices, etc so that it can be fed into the national identity card programme that would ensure that all residents of Nigeria are captured in a well managed and IT-based data base”.

The ACJA further provided that the Attorney-General of the Federation shall maintain an electronic register of arrests, which will collate reports of all arrested persons from the police state commands and the force headquarters to the Attorney-General’s office.

Section 29: “The inspector- General of police and the head of every agency recognized by law to make arrests shall remit quarterly to the Attorney-General of the Federation a record of all arrests made with or without warrant in relation to federal offences within Nigeria.

“The Commissioner of Police in a State and head of every agency authorized by law to make arrests within a State shall remit quarterly to the Attorney-General of that State a record of all arrests made with or without warrant in relation to State offences or arrests within the State.

“The report shall contain the full particulars of arrested suspects as prescribed by Section 15 of this Act.

“A register of arrests containing the particulars prescribed in section 15 of this Act shall be kept in the prescribed form at every police station or agency recognized by law to make arrests, whether made with or without warrant, within the local limits of the police station or agency, or within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall be entered accordingly by the officer in charge of the police station or official in charge of the agency as soon as the arrested suspect is brought to the police station or agency”.

The Attorney-General of the Federation shall establish an electronic and manual database of all records of arrests at the Federal and State level.

One can only hope that all involved will do what is right to give efficacy to these provisions.

Report to Supervising Magistrate, Chief Magistrate’s visit to Police Station, and returns by Comptroller – General of Prisons

To further secure the rights of suspects, track everyone who encounter the criminal justice system, prevent human rights abuses and perhaps to prevent undue and prolonged detention of suspects the ACJA made further note worthy provisions.

Section 33 (1) thereof provides that an officer in charge of a police station or an official in charge of an agency authorized to make arrest shall on the last working day of every month report to the nearest Magistrate the cases of all suspects arrested without warrant within the limits of their stations or agency whether the suspects have been admitted to bail or not.

Section 34 of ACJA in the same vein provides that the Chief Magistrate, or where there is no Chief Magistrate within the police division, any Magistrate designated by the Chief Judge for that purpose shall, at least every month, conduct an inspection of police stations or other places of detention within his territorial jurisdiction other the prison.

Section 111 ACJA further provides that the Comptroller – General of Prisons is to make returns every 90 days to the Chief Judges, President of the National Industrial Court and the Attorney – General of the Federation of all persons awaiting trial held in custody for a period beyond 180 days from the date of arraignment.

ACJA makes it mandatory that upon the receipt of such return, the recipient shall take such steps as necessary to address the issues raised in the return in furtherance of the objectives of the Act.

Legal Advice

If you are a defence counsel, one of the major causes of frustration and delay in criminal trials is the time spent to obtain the Advice of the Director of Public Prosecution in our various States which has been euphemistically tagged “awaiting DPP’s advice”.

Now the ACJL recognized this as an embarrassment and major cause of delays in criminal trials and therefore directs in Section 74 (1) ACJL that the Commissioner of Police “shall forward all duplicate case files with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Attorney-General for the purpose of issuance of legal advice”.

However the ACJA took this further by imposing time frames to ensure prompt issuance of legal advice and aid speedy trials. Section 376 (1) imposed an obligation on the police to forward the casefile of investigations in respect of an offence the magistrate has no jurisdiction to try to the Attorney-General of the Federation to issue legal advice within 14 days of the receipt of the case file indicating whether or not there is a prima facie case against the defendant for which he can be prosecuted. Copies of such legal advice must be served on the police, the court and the suspect involved.

The elaborate prescriptions for time limits for the issuance of legal advice by the Attorney-General will greatly help the decongestion of our prisons and facilitate expeditious trials as ACJA also provides that the suspect should be released unconditionally if he is not charged to court after 56 days upon with or without an application by his legal practitioner and no further application for remand shall be entertained in the matter. See Section 296 ACJA.

Simplification of Bail Processes:

The ACJL now makes provisions in Sections 118 (3), 119 and 138 respectively to ease bail burden on suspects which are at times overwhelming and almost impossible to discharge. The provisions are:
1. a) No person shall be denied or prevented or restricted from entering into any recognizance or standing as suretry or providing any security on the ground that the person is a woman.
1. b) A Judge may, if he thinks fit, admit any person charged before a Magistrate Court to bail although the Court before whom the Charge was made has not thought it fit to do so.
1. c) The Chief Judge may, by regulation, register and license individuals or corporate bodies or persons to act as Bondspersons within the jurisdiction of the Court in which they are registered.
See Sections 167 (3) and 187 (1) of ACJA for similar provisions.

We consider these provisions very important as one of the factors which account for prison congestion and long trials is the inability of suspects to meet their bail conditions. Any simplification of the process that the extant law proposes to facilitate the early release of persons in custody is a welcome development. Bondspersons will help all and sundry as it will eliminate the need for every accused person to have personal sureties who will meet the specifications of the conditions of bail.

Remand Proceedings:

Section 291 to 296 of ACJA provides for remand proceedings and time limit.

The point to note is that Section 293 of ACJA generally provides that upon an application ex parte by the police in the prescribed form a magistrate may order the remand of a suspect pending the receipt of the Legal advise of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Section 296 ACJA imposes time limits of 14 days on four different accounts for the prosecution to take steps to prosecute the suspect and where that is not done for a cumulative 56 days, the magistrate is empowered to release the suspect from prison custody unconditionally. See Section 296 (6) (7) and Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 538.

There is the major advantage that this provision will prevent the pre-trial process from dragging on and shortening time spent ‘awaiting DPP’s advice’, promote prompt arraignment before the trial court and help decongest our prisons.

Abolition of Lay Prosecutors:

Constitutionally the Attorney-General of the Federation and of the federating States are vested with the powers to prosecute offenders personally or through the legal officers in the Justice Ministry.

However the prosecutorial powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies like the EFCC, ICPC, NDLEA have been recognized and assured by the enabling Act establishing these agencies albeit subject to the overriding power of the Attorney-General to takeover or discontinue any such proceedings at any time before judgement.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria had held in the two landmark cases of Olusemo v. the Commissioner of Police (1998) II NWLR (pt 575), 547 and Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Osahon (2006) that the power to prosecute is not limited to the Attorney General alone. A police officer and any such other person or body who has been statutorily clothed with the power to prosecute can do so but subject of course to the Attorney General’s power to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person. In exercising these powers, the constitution granted the Attorney General the latitude and wide discretion as he shall only have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process and the Attorney General alone determines when and in what circumstances to act.

Therefore the fact that the EFCC and ICPC and other such bodies as NAFDAC and NDLEA have the power to prosecute before the enactment of ACJL and ACJA is a moot point. See further Customs and Excise v. Senator Barau (1982) 2 N.C.R. 1 and Unipetrol Plc. v. E.S.B.I.R (2006) Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 114. The Supreme Court even widened the frontiers, pronouncing in Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Togun (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797 that a private citizen had the locus, which is the standing to prosecute or file an information after an application endorsed by the Attorney-General.

However, it now appears that the tables have turned. By the relevant provision of the Lagos Law and ACJA, police lay prosecutors are to be abolished. By the provisions of ACJL trials should be held in the High court on information filed by a Law Officer or Private Prosecutor.

Section 253 ACJL categorically provides that “information shall be signed by a Law Officer”. The implied interpretation of this is that since a criminal trial can only be commenced at the High Court by an information, which can only be signed by a Law Officer, the policeman, even if learned in law, not being a Law Officer is thus excluded from prosecuting at the Lagos High Court.

The ACJA made similar provisions in Section 106 to the effect that the prosecution of all offences in any Court shall be undertaken by the Attorney-General of the Federation or a law officer in his ministry, a legal practitioner authorized by him to prosecute or a legal practitioner authorized by ACJA or any Act of the National Assembly to prosecute.

It should be obvious that by this provision, any police officer or public official who is not a qualified legal practitioner cannot prosecute in the Federal High Court, the High Court and the Magistrate Courts of the Federal Capital Territory.

Ostensibly this provision was made to cure the apparent incapacity of lay prosecutors to respond to vital issues of law raised for determination by legal practitioners appearing for defendants in criminal trials, delay by lay prosecutors who never seem to have their witnesses on hand and the alarming failure of lay prosecutors to secure convictions in many simple cases especially at the magistrate courts.

Legal Aid:

Section 74 (6) ACJL prescribed a State-run free legal services to a suspect in the form of the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) when it states that “a form indicating a desire to be represented by counsel of his choice or the Office of the Public Defender, Legal Aid Council or any other organization providing legal aid shall be attached to each legal advice for purpose of endorsement by the person in respect of whom legal advice is preferred”.

The OPD has such powers as:
1. a) The provision of legal aid services and advice;
2. b) To receive complaints from individuals or by referrals from government and private institutions;
3. c) Investigate complaints and referrals made to it and to prepare necessary legal documents;
4. d) Negotiate settlements or give necessary legal advice in alternative dispute resolutions, etc.
On the other hand Section 17 (2) of ACJA provides for the desirability of recording a suspect’s extra-judicial statement in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice or an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, or an official of a Civil Society Organisation or a Justice of the Peace or any other person of his choice.

Whilst both Laws recognised the traditional role of the Legal Aid Council in providing legal aid services to indigent Nigerians, the Lagos Law took it further by widening the scope and bringing in OPD which operations have enabled the provision of free legal services in respect of criminal and civil matters to indigent residents of Lagos State without regards to tribe, race or religion.

CONCLUSION:

The Government of Lagos State and the Federal Government ought to be commended for the long overdue overhaul of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. A few States of the Federation have followed suit and those who have not done so have been urged to adopt and or domesticate the model federal law in their jurisdiction of competence.

A crime free society is a prosperous society where economic and social development is assured so this attempt at galvanizing an efficient and effective administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is one that all stakeholders and every Nigerian must embrace and work assiduously towards the realization of the objectives of the Federal and State Laws.

Stephen Onimisi Obajaja, a Lagos based Legal practitioner is the immediate past Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) Lagos Branch.
January 9, 2018
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.”

The Court proceeded further “I think, it was the veritable Lord Denning MR, who in his notoriously erudite and visionary characteristics aptly remarked thus – ‘What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on: and that will be bad for both.’ See Packer v. Packer (1954) 15 at 22″

The Court went on to hold that computer generated documents in keeping with modern times, the great leap and advancement in technology though not envisaged and provided for in the old Evidence Act were none the less admissible so long as they emanate from proper custody and are relevant to the facts in issue.

The Evidence Act was eventually amended in 2011 and in Section 84 (1) provided “in any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and the computer in question”.

The only other issue to note here is that the mere requirement that a Lawyer be present when statements are taken needs to be qualified. Mere presence will amount to nothing if the Lawyer cannot guide the suspect especially where direct questions which if answered may amount to self incrimination are thrown at the suspect.

However Section 17 ACJA provides that the legal practitioner present shall not interfere while the suspect is making his statement, except for the purpose of discharging his role as a legal practitioner. One may therefore ask, what is his role as a legal practitioner in the circumstances?

Plea Bargain and Sentence Agreements:

Plea bargaining gained traction in Nigeria with the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission even though there was no clear provision for it in Nigeria at the time. The ACJL has now specifically provided for plea bargain in Section 76 thus: “notwithstanding anything in this Law or in any other law, the Attorney-General of the State shall have power to consider and accept a plea bargain from a person charged with any offence where the Attorney-General is of the view that the acceptance of such plea bargain is in the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent the abuse of legal process”.

Simply put, plea bargain means the negotiation of an agreement between the prosecution and the defence whereby the Defendant is allowed to plead guilty to a lesser/reduced offence/charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence or an agreement to drop other charges against the Defendant.

The ACJL also allows the prosecutor and the defendant or his legal practitioner to enter into a plea bargain agreement before the plea is taken subject to the overriding discretion of the judge who will however not participate in the negotiations.

Section 270 of ACJA has similar provisions that will extend to non-custodial sentencing including parole, suspended sentence and community service.

Plea bargain saves time and resources, reduces the trauma to the victims, aid prison decongestion, helps case management, reduces the number of inmates awaiting trial. In the same vein, non-custodial sentencing helps decongest our prisons and allow convicts to contribute to societal good in terms of community service.

Collection, Storage of Data and Record of Arrests:

Section 20 (1) ACJL requires that “officers in charge of Police station shall report to the nearest Magistrate the cases of all persons arrested without warrant within the limits of their respective station whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not and the Chief Magistrate shall notify the Chief Registrar of the High Court of such report who shall forward the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for necessary actions”.

The ACJL further directs that “the Commissioner of Police shall remit to the Office of the Attorney-General a record of all arrests made with or without a warrant in relation to state offences within one week of the arrest”.

ACJA made similar provisions to the effect that the police takes a full inventory of every arrested person, including the persons physical and biometric data within 48 hours. This is to prevent unreasonable pre-trial detention by the police and other law enforcement agencies. See Section 15 (1) & (2) ACJA.

There is established in Section 16 (1) ACJA a Central Criminal Records Registry at the Police Force where all information of all persons who encounters the criminal justice processes are stored and managed. Section 16 (2) creates Criminal Record Registry in all State commands, where all the data collected of all arrested persons from the police posts and divisions are transmitted to the State Command Registry and then collated and stored at the Central Registry at the force headquarters.

A critical provision is Section 16 (3) ACJA which makes it mandatory for the police to ensure that the decision of the Court in all criminal trials are transmitted to the Central Criminal Records Registry within thirty days of delivery of the judgement.

Imagine what it will mean for the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria if this little effort at registration of criminal convictions or acquittals are made! The prosecution will know who and what they are dealing with from day one. The defence counsel can no longer cast every serial offender as an innocent person making his first and unintended transgression against the Law. Above all, everyone could search the registry as you would at the Corporate Affairs Commission and easily overcome the problem of information asymmetry in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.

According to Chino Obiagwu, the Executive Director of Legal Defence and Assistance Project in his piece “ACJ Act 2015: New Face of Federal Criminal Justice Administration”, “this is an innovation that would improve crime prevention and management in the country. It requires strong political will of the police leadership and other federal justice sector institutions leaders to fully implement it. It will be very useful to have strong coordination and increased exchange of data including harmonisation of biometric information among the security and other electronic data sources including telecommunications, banks, customs, passport and immigration offices, etc so that it can be fed into the national identity card programme that would ensure that all residents of Nigeria are captured in a well managed and IT-based data base”.

The ACJA further provided that the Attorney-General of the Federation shall maintain an electronic register of arrests, which will collate reports of all arrested persons from the police state commands and the force headquarters to the Attorney-General’s office.

Section 29 (1) – “the inspector- General of police and the head of every agency recognized by law to make arrests shall remit quarterly to the Attorney-General of the Federation a record of all arrests made with or without warrant in relation to federal offences within Nigeria.

(2) – “the Commissioner of Police in a State and head of every agency authorized by law to make arrests within a State shall remit quarterly to the Attorney-General of that State a record of all arrests made with or without warrant in relation to State offences or arrests within the State.

(3) – “the report shall contain the full particulars of arrested suspects as prescribed by Section 15 of this Act.

(4) – “a register of arrests containing the particulars prescribed in section 15 of this Act shall be kept in the prescribed form at every police station or agency recognized by law to make arrests, whether made with or without warrant, within the local limits of the police station or agency, or within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall be entered accordingly by the officer in charge of the police station or official in charge of the agency as soon as the arrested suspect is brought to the police station or agency”.

(5) – the Attorney-General of the Federation shall establish an electronic and manual database of all records of arrests at the Federal and State level.

One can only hope that all involved will do what is right to give efficacy to these provisions.

Report to Supervising Magistrate, Chief Magistrate Visit to Police Station, and Returns by Comptroller – General of Prisons:

To further secure the rights of suspects, track everyone who encounter the criminal justice system, prevent human rights abuses and perhaps to prevent undue and prolonged detention of suspects the ACJA made further note worthy provisions.

Section 33 (1) thereof provides that an officer in charge of a police station or an official in charge of an agency authorized to make arrest shall on the last working day of every month report to the nearest Magistrate the cases of all suspects arrested without warrant within the limits of their stations or agency whether the suspects have been admitted to bail or not.

Section 34 of ACJA in the same vein provides that the Chief Magistrate, or where there is no Chief Magistrate within the police division, any Magistrate designated by the Chief Judge for that purpose shall, at least every month, conduct an inspection of police stations or other places of detention within his territorial jurisdiction other the prison.

Section 111 ACJA further provides that the Comptroller – General of Prisons is to make returns every 90 days to the Chief Judges, President of the National Industrial Court and the Attorney – General of the Federation of all persons awaiting trial held in custody for a period beyond 180 days from the date of arraignment.

ACJA makes it mandatory that upon the receipt of such return, the recipient shall take such steps as necessary to address the issues raised in the return in furtherance of the objectives of the Act.

Legal Advice:

If you are a defence counsel, one of the major causes of frustration and delay in criminal trials is the time spent to obtain the Advice of the Director of Public Prosecution in our various States which has been euphemistically tagged “awaiting DPP’s advice”.

Now the ACJL recognized this as an embarrassment and major cause of delays in criminal trials and therefore directs in Section 74 (1) ACJL that the Commissioner of Police “shall forward all duplicate case files with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Attorney-General for the purpose of issuance of legal advice”.

However the ACJA took this further by imposing time frames to ensure prompt issuance of legal advice and aid speedy trials. Section 376 (1) imposed an obligation on the police to forward the casefile of investigations in respect of an offence the magistrate has no jurisdiction to try to the Attorney-General of the Federation to issue legal advice within 14 days of the receipt of the case file indicating whether or not there is a prima facie case against the defendant for which he can be prosecuted. Copies of such legal advice must be served on the police, the court and the suspect involved.

The elaborate prescriptions for time limits for the issuance of legal advice by the Attorney-General will greatly help the decongestion of our prisons and facilitate expeditious trials as ACJA also provides that the suspect should be released unconditionally if he is not charged to court after 56 days upon with or without an application by his legal practitioner and no further application for remand shall be entertained in the matter. See Section 296 ACJA.

Simplification of Bail Processes:

The ACJL now makes provisions in Sections 118 (3), 119 and 138 respectively to ease bail burden on suspects which are at times overwhelming and almost impossible to discharge. The provisions are:
1. a) No person shall be denied or prevented or restricted from entering into any recognizance or standing as suretry or providing any security on the ground that the person is a woman.
1. b) A Judge may, if he thinks fit, admit any person charged before a Magistrate Court to bail although the Court before whom the Charge was made has not thought it fit to do so.
1. c) The Chief Judge may, by regulation, register and license individuals or corporate bodies or persons to act as Bondspersons within the jurisdiction of the Court in which they are registered.
See Sections 167 (3) and 187 (1) of ACJA for similar provisions.

We consider these provisions very important as one of the factors which account for prison congestion and long trials is the inability of suspects to meet their bail conditions. Any simplification of the process that the extant law proposes to facilitate the early release of persons in custody is a welcome development. Bondspersons will help all and sundry as it will eliminate the need for every accused person to have personal sureties who will meet the specifications of the conditions of bail.

Remand Proceedings:

Section 291 to 296 of ACJA provides for remand proceedings and time limit.

The point to note is that Section 293 of ACJA generally provides that upon an application ex parte by the police in the prescribed form a magistrate may order the remand of a suspect pending the receipt of the Legal advise of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Section 296 ACJA imposes time limits of 14 days on four different accounts for the prosecution to take steps to prosecute the suspect and where that is not done for a cumulative 56 days, the magistrate is empowered to release the suspect from prison custody unconditionally. See Section 296 (6) (7) and Lufadeju v. Johnson (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 538.

There is the major advantage that this provision will prevent the pre-trial process from dragging on and shortening time spent ‘awaiting DPP’s advice’, promote prompt arraignment before the trial court and help decongest our prisons.

Abolition of Lay Prosecutors:

Constitutionally the Attorney-General of the Federation and of the federating States are vested with the powers to prosecute offenders personally or through the legal officers in the Justice Ministry.

However the prosecutorial powers of the police and other law enforcement agencies like the EFCC, ICPC, NDLEA have been recognized and assured by the enabling Act establishing these agencies albeit subject to the overriding power of the Attorney-General to takeover or discontinue any such proceedings at any time before judgement.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria had held in the two landmark cases of Olusemo v. the Commissioner of Police (1998) II NWLR (pt 575), 547 and Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Osahon (2006) that the power to prosecute is not limited to the Attorney General alone. A police officer and any such other person or body who has been statutorily clothed with the power to prosecute can do so but subject of course to the Attorney General’s power to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person. In exercising these powers, the constitution granted the Attorney General the latitude and wide discretion as he shall only have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process and the Attorney General alone determines when and in what circumstances to act.

Therefore the fact that the EFCC and ICPC and other such bodies as NAFDAC and NDLEA have the power to prosecute before the enactment of ACJL and ACJA is a moot point. See further Customs and Excise v. Senator Barau (1982) 2 N.C.R. 1 and Unipetrol Plc. v. E.S.B.I.R (2006) Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 114. The Supreme Court even widened the frontiers, pronouncing in Fawehinmi v. Akilu & Togun (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 797 that a private citizen had the locus, which is the standing to prosecute or file an information after an application endorsed by the Attorney-General.

However, it now appears that the tables have turned. By the relevant provision of the Lagos Law and ACJA, police lay prosecutors are to be abolished. By the provisions of ACJL trials should be held in the High court on information filed by a Law Officer or Private Prosecutor.

Section 253 ACJL categorically provides that “information shall be signed by a Law Officer”. The implied interpretation of this is that since a criminal trial can only be commenced at the High Court by an information, which can only be signed by a Law Officer, the policeman, even if learned in law, not being a Law Officer is thus excluded from prosecuting at the Lagos High Court.

The ACJA made similar provisions in Section 106 to the effect that the prosecution of all offences in any Court shall be undertaken by the Attorney-General of the Federation or a law officer in his ministry, a legal practitioner authorized by him to prosecute or a legal practitioner authorized by ACJA or any Act of the National Assembly to prosecute.

It should be obvious that by this provision, any police officer or public official who is not a qualified legal practitioner cannot prosecute in the Federal High Court, the High Court and the Magistrate Courts of the Federal Capital Territory.

Ostensibly this provision was made to cure the apparent incapacity of lay prosecutors to respond to vital issues of law raised for determination by legal practitioners appearing for defendants in criminal trials, delay by lay prosecutors who never seem to have their witnesses on hand and the alarming failure of lay prosecutors to secure convictions in many simple cases especially at the magistrate courts.

Legal Aid:

Section 74 (6) ACJL prescribed a State-run free legal services to a suspect in the form of the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) when it states that “a form indicating a desire to be represented by counsel of his choice or the Office of the Public Defender, Legal Aid Council or any other organization providing legal aid shall be attached to each legal advice for purpose of endorsement by the person in respect of whom legal advice is preferred”.

The OPD has such powers as:
1. a) The provision of legal aid services and advice;
2. b) To receive complaints from individuals or by referrals from government and private institutions;
3. c) Investigate complaints and referrals made to it and to prepare necessary legal documents;
4. d) Negotiate settlements or give necessary legal advice in alternative dispute resolutions, etc.
On the other hand Section 17 (2) of ACJA provides for the desirability of recording a suspect’s extra-judicial statement in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice or an officer of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, or an official of a Civil Society Organisation or a Justice of the Peace or any other person of his choice.

Whilst both Laws recognised the traditional role of the Legal Aid Council in providing legal aid services to indigent Nigerians, the Lagos Law took it further by widening the scope and bringing in OPD which operations have enabled the provision of free legal services in respect of criminal and civil matters to indigent residents of Lagos State without regards to tribe, race or religion.

CONCLUSION:

The Government of Lagos State and the Federal Government ought to be commended for the long overdue overhaul of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. A few States of the Federation have followed suit and those who have not done so have been urged to adopt and or domesticate the model federal law in their jurisdiction of competence.

A crime free society is a prosperous society where economic and social development is assured so this attempt at galvanizing an efficient and effective administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is one that all stakeholders and every Nigerian must embrace and work assiduously towards the realization of the objectives of the Federal and State Laws.

Stephen Onimisi Obajaja, a Lagos based Legal practitioner is the immediate past Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA) Lagos Branch.
December 12, 2017
Lagos trains Magistrates on implementation of criminal justice law

In a bid to ensure effective administration of the Criminal Justice Law 2011 especially as it relates to sexual offences, the Lagos State Government has begun a workshop to ensure uniformity amongst Magistrates in the implementation of the provisions of the Law.

Speaking at the commencement of the workshop organised by the State Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary in partnership with the Legal Defence Assistance Project (LEDAP), Chief Judge of Lagos State Hon. Justice Olufumilayo Atilade said that the law was an innovation geared towards enhancing the administration of Criminal Justice in the State.

Atilade, who was represented by the Chief Registrar of the High Court, Mr Emmanuel Ogundare, called for better synergy among stakeholders in the Justice Sector Agencies, while deliberating on issues bordering on the interpretation of the Law, with particular reference to sexual offence cases.

According to her, sexual offences have become rampant in the society, adding that the method and procedure for handling the prosecution of these offences must be appraised critically. She urged all participants to look critically at those sections of the Law in order to ensure uniformity in its implementation.

She expressed optimism that the workshop would go a long way to ensure uniformity amongst Magistrates in the implementation of the provisions of the Law.

Speaking in the same vein, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Adeniji Kazeem, said the training will provide the participants with on-going discourse and serve as a forum for consensus among the Magistrates on the relevant sections of the Law.

He said, “The Magistracy, being an integral part of our judicial system must assist in the pursuit of justice for victims of crimes, defendants and of course the larger society through the full implementation of the procedural law.”

Kazeem emphasised that with the continuous partnership with the judiciary and other relevant stakeholders, the delivery of justice in the state will be seen to have complied substantially with international best practices.

The Attorney General, who was represented by State’s Solicitor General, Mrs. Funlola Odunlami, gave an assurance of continuous collaboration and support from this administration as emphasized by the Lagos State Governor, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode to make Lagos a peaceful and secure place to live and do business, by having an effective Criminal Justice Administration.

June 21, 2016