The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption

  • Sagay: Obasanjo suffering from power withdrawal syndrome

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Tuesday said former President Olusegun Obasanjo was suffering from what he called “power withdrawal syndrome”.

    He said Obasanjo lacked the qualities that mark the status of a former President, such as quiet dignity, respect, discretion, decorum, discipline and restraint.

    “Obasanjo does not have a single one of these qualities.

    “We have had a number of former heads of state, namely Gowon, Shagari, Babangida, Abubakar Salami and Jonathan.

    “All of these have exercised discretion, restraint and self-discipline in relation to their successors, but not Obasanjo,” Sagay said.

    According to him, Obasanjo’s “boisterous, aggressive and hectoring attitude” towards succeeding Presidents meant he was suffering from the effects of leaving office.

    “It strikes me as a case of one who has never recovered from the loss of power.

    “By his meddlesomeness, rude and uncouth attitude towards later heads of state, it is clear that he is addicted to a substance called ‘power’, and is angry and resentful towards any other person exercising it,” Sagay said.

    The eminent professor of law recalled that Buhari was not the first President to be attacked by Obasanjo.

    Read also: Seyi Makinde to voters: I will create wealth if elected

    “The truth is that Obasanjo has never recovered from his power addiction and in his own mind, he is the President-General of Nigeria for life,” Sagay said.

    The PACAC chairman said another strange phenomenon is Obasanjo’s capacity to launch vitriolic attacks on his successors allegedly doing what he (Obasanjo) did repeatedly as president “without a thought of his own gross misdeeds; a clear case of amnesia”.

    After recounting some of Obasanjo’s misdeeds, Sagay added: “Obasanjo believes that he can break all rules and ethics but it is a crime for others to even appear to follow his footsteps in that regard.

    “He is a man who is not conscious of a sense of wrongdoing and is probably unaware of the long list of depredations trailing his footsteps.

    “The man is not just immoral, he is worse; he is amoral, i.e., he lacks a sense of right or wrong.

    “Obasanjo is now an old man. It is now imperative that he learns to exercise some discretion and restraint in his public statements.

    “His bombastic, false, misleading and destructive outbursts, are not befitting of a so-called Elder Stateman, even more less of a former president.

    “Obasanjo, let Nigeria be!  Go to Owu and rest!”

  • Sagay: FG can invoke doctrine of necessity to fund 2019 election

    Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Wednesday said the Federal Government could fund next year’s general election by invoking the doctrine of necessity should the National Assembly fail to pass the budget.

    According to him, the overriding necessity of elections and survival of democracy supersede the National Assembly’s powers where democracy is threatened.

    Sagay, in a statement, said while the power to approve the budget is only a single item in the Constitution, democracy and its processes, including elections, are what the Constitution are about.

    The statement reads: “The failure or refusal by the National Assembly to approve funds for the 2019 election will constitute a sabotage of our democracy, of which the Constitution is the embodiment.

    “If elections are not held, it will mean the collapse of our democracy, leading to chaos and anarchy. The question that arises is simple.

    “Which is more critical to democracy and the survival of Nigeria: Is it (1) the power of the National Assembly to approve budgets or (2) the survival of democracy and Nigeria itself?

    “If the survival of democracy is more important and fundamental to Nigeria’s existence, then failure to approve the budget for elections will trigger the doctrine of necessity, thus compelling the funding of election without the approval of the National Assembly.

    “It is simply a question of the survival of democracy and the continued existence of Nigeria. The power of approval of budget is just a single item in the whole of the Constitution.

    Read Also: Saraki should resign as a matter of honour, says Sagay

    “On the contrary, elections and democracy which they support, constitute what the whole Constitution is about.

    “Therefore, the overriding necessity and imperative of elections and democracy simply override the power of National Assembly.

    “If the National Assembly refuses or fails to approve the budget for election, the doctrine of necessity will validate the provision of the funds without the National Assembly’s approval.”

    The National Assembly Joint Committee on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will o reconvene on August 27 to conclude work on the 2019 INEC budget submitted to it by President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Co-Chairman of the Joint Committee, Senator Suleiman Nazif, had said in a statement: “Sequel to the ongoing consideration of the INEC 2019 General Election Budget by the joint committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the general public is hereby informed that work on the budget is in advanced stage and in line with the mandate issued to the joint committee by the leadership of the National Assembly.

    “Equally, the joint committee deliberated on all key attributes of the budget while taking into cognisance the imperative urgency for the budget to be ready in time for the 2019 general election hence, necessitating sacrifice and selflessness from our distinguished and honourable members.

    “Furthermore, it is imperative to state here explicitly that, after an audacious session with all critical stakeholders, the joint committee dissolved into executive structure and agreed to resume on 27th of August, 2018, (after Sallah) to consider the harmonised version of the budget report diligently.

    “Moreso, the report of the joint committee will be made available for further and appropriate legislative action in earnest.”

  • Getting the corrupt through Unexplained Wealth Orders

    The Criminal Finances Act 2017 gives the United Kingdom (UK) courts powers to issue Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO), through which assets can be recovered. How can law enforcement agencies take advantage of it to recover assets hidden in the UK? The Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) and the UK National Crime Agency (NCA) held a workshop in Abuja for civil society organisations and the media on how UWO works. JOSEPH JIBUEZE reports.

    How anti-graft agencies in Nigeria can take advantage of the Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO) formed the subject of discussion at a “capacity building workshop on the UK UWO for civil society organisations and the media” in Abuja.

    It was organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC), in collaboration with the UK National Crime Agency (NCA), and funded by UKAid.

       On April 27, last year, the United Kingdom parliament enacted the Criminal Finances Act that empowers the courts to issue UWO, which has been described as a powerful weapon against money laundering.

    The UWO and the supporting interim freezing orders, which came into effect on January 31, target red flag situations where a person buying expensive items, such as property and jewelry, does not appear to be wealthy enough to afford them.

    It could be a politician in Nigeria who buys a multi-million pound property in a highbrow part of London. If the person has links to serious crime or access to public funds, then the authorities can launch an investigation using the UWO.

    The UWO can be used to investigate the source of money, and if found to have been stolen, can be returned to the owners.

    The UWO is an investigation order issued by the High Court upon application by designated law enforcement agencies on satisfaction of a number of tests.

    It requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in a particular property.

    Such a person will be required to explain how the property was obtained where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to acquire the property.

    The UK had been accused of being a safe haven for corrupt money laundered from all over the world. Experts therefore believe that the UWO will empower UK law enforcement agencies to target corrupt money flowing into the UK and more easily return it to those from whom it has been stolen.

     

    ‘UWO will enhance asset recovery’

    PACAC Executive Secretary (ES) Prof Bolaji Owasanoye believes the UWO will boost the Federal Government’s asset recovery drive, especially those laundered in the UK.

    According to him, huge sums laundered from Nigeria and other developing countries end up in the UK as one of the largest centers of stolen public funds and illicit financial flows.

    He said given the historical and colonial ties between Nigeria and Britain, a huge chunk of stolen public funds from Nigeria end up in Britain or British Protected Territories that have lax rules against money laundering and tax evasion.

    Some Nigerian-politically exposed persons (PEPS), Owasanoye said, launder money by purchasing properties in England through school fees, diaspora investments or by keeping savings accounts for a life of luxury ever after.

    “Happily, the British government desirous of discouraging this practice and changing the reputation has introduced measures, the most recent of which is the Criminal Finances Act of 2017.

    “Since the coming into effect of CFA in February this year, expectation has been high that Nigeria can finally recover some of her stolen wealth stashed away in England through the use of the UWO,” he said.

    Owasanoye emphasised that asset recovery remains a major component of the government’s anti-corruption effort.

    “Therefore, we see the advent of the UWO as another great opportunity to enhance government policy objective,” Owasanoye said.

    He noted that the UWO can be applied to politicians or officials from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), or those associated with them, such as PEPs.

     

    How it works

     

    According to NCA Anti-Corruption Manager in Nigeria Mr Paddy Kerr, who facilitated the workshop, the UWO is a court order which requires that a person or some corporate entities provide a statement to the law enforcement agency.

    The statement will contain the extent of the respondent’s interest in the property described in the UWO, how the person obtained that property, including how the costs incurred in obtaining the property were met, as well as the provision of other information in connection with the property as specified in the UWO.

    “The UWO is an investigative tool, not a means of recovering property in its own right,” he emphasised.

    Kerr said the UWO facilitates effective collection of overseas evidence and improves the rate of recovery in asset forfeiture.

    He added that the UWO shifts investigative burden, diminishes having to obtain information from third parties, has extra-territorial effect, and limits the need for mutual legal assistance.

    Besides, he said the UWO enhances early decision on viability of civil recovery cases and leads to putting a face to an entity, which he said is useful for establishing ultimate beneficial ownership.

    Investigators, said Kerr, could obtain multiples UWOs, which can counter-cover other beneficial owners and respondents.

    On the requirements, he said the court must be satisfied that the respondent is involved in serious crime, was involved in serious crime, or is connected to a person involved in serious crime, such as “grand corruption.”

    He said the UWO can be applied to PEPS, their family members, close associates or companies.

    Targets are those who have been entrusted with prominent public functions in a non-European Economic Area states or international organisations

    They include heads of states, ministers, lawmakers, political party leaders, judges, ambassadors, high ranking military officers, government officials, or members of bodies controlling state-owned enterprises, among others.

    Kerr said the court must be satisfied that the asset exceeds £50,000, that the respondent controls the property, and that his lawfully obtained income is not enough to pay for the property.

    Evidence for a UWO application, he explained, can be from previous recovery work, previous criminal investigation, open and closed source material, utility bills, income tax payments, offshore company registrations, evidence from other UWO, among others.

    Kerr said the court consequently makes an interim freezing order which prevents the respondent or any other person with interest in the property from dealing with it.

    However, the court offers some protection to the respondent as he can bring a claim for compensation where he suffers a loss due to the interim freezing order, or where there is a serious default on  the part of the law enforcement authority.

    On procedure for making the UWO, Kerr said it can be made without notice, adding that non-compliance with a UWO is punishable by a two year term of imprisonment or a fine.

    “If a person purports to comply with the UWO and makes a statement he knows to be false, or recklessly makes a statement and it is false or misleading in a material manner, he commits a criminal offence,” he said.

    An effective use of the UWO could result in asset restraint, confiscation, realisation, denial and repatriation, Kerr said.

    Kerr urged anti-graft agencies to be proactive.

    “Rather than focus on repatriation, the aim should be to stop looting. If we talk about asset repatriation, then it means we failed,” he said.

    PACAC Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) believes the UWO would make it more difficult to hide stolen assets in the UK and will aid the recovery stolen assets, which he said can be used for social causes as the government has been doing.

    On how Nigerian anti-graft agencies can use the UWO, he said: “If we want to investigate or recover an asset from England, we can now make contact with their ministry of justice or one of their agencies, taking all the evidence we have about the asset that is there and giving them.’’

     

  • Sagay: we’re running a failed judicial system

    Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman, does not suffer fools gladly. He is blunt and fiery. A lawyer and teacher of no mean repute, he is not afraid of controversy. He can give as much as he can take. Right from his days as a university teacher till now, Sagay has remained a thorn in the flesh of those he tags enemies of the people. These, to him, are those who do not want Nigerians to enjoy the good things of life as they are now doing under the Buhari administration. In this interview with JOSEPH JIBUEZE, Sagay speaks on the state of the judiciary and what is being done with recovered funds, among other issues.

    President Muhammadu Buhari has blamed the judiciary for frustrating corruption cases. How would you assess the judiciary ahead of the new legal year?

    Let me start by saying that the President was right. The judiciary, acting as presidential tribunals, was a disaster. They did many terrible things, particularly in 2007. That was a most shameless act at a high level, where they could open their eyes and write that a ballot paper without serial number is a valid ballot paper. It never happened anywhere in the world. That was most shameless. There have been a lot of improvements since then, even though we still have corrupt judges. There is no question about that – at all levels. But the level of corruption has gone down. There is an attempt to fall in with the spirit of the anti-corruption struggle that the Buhari administration has introduced.

    How do you mean?

    I always say that the Chief Justice’s directive that special courts should be designated by Chief Judges of various courts in the country for corruption cases only, and the establishment of a monitoring group, are very excellent ideas. They were ideas we were pursuing for which we were not successful because the National Assembly to whom we sent the bills refused to consider them. But the Chief Justice did it administratively and they’re operating and doing very well. You heard recently that two former governors were sentenced to lengthy imprisonments and it was by one of these courts. So, I’m encouraged by that. But, we’re still watching the Judiciary. Everything is not perfect yet. We’re still far away from the type of Judiciary we had, particularly the type of Supreme Court we had when Eso, Oputa, Mohammed Bello, Obaseki, Karibi-Whyte, Nnamani were there. Then we had the best Supreme Court in the world. It has dropped sharply since then. So, we are nowhere near there. And I keep telling the present crop of judges, including the Supreme Court justices who are all my juniors, that they should aspire to what we had before. They’re not there yet and I want to see them positively aspiring to that.

    Some have said the holidays judges enjoy are too long – from July to September, in addition to Easter and Christmas vacations. In view of court congestion, would you recommend a reduction? 

    I have a slightly different opinion. The work of a judge is very, very demanding, mentally and extremely demanding. They have to do a lot of reading to write a single judgment, and do a lot of analysis, and after that begin to crunch their brains about where the law is, and not only law, where justice is leading them. So, if they have a two-month holiday, I don’t mind. My complaint against them is the callousness with which some judges – and many judges do it – will not sit and they will not tell you before hand. You come there prepared; you’ve given up the whole day just for the case, you’re in court and you’ll be told the judge had gone somewhere. The registrar would just tell you the judge had gone somewhere. That’s an insult on the lawyers and an insult on the people of this country, for a judge to just take off, and they have our phone numbers. Nobody will call you. That’s number one. Number two, their conferences are too many. One conference today, another one tomorrow – seminar in Dubai. There is too much laxity, a sort of I don’t care attitude about the sufferings of lawyers and their clients. I do not have the feeling that judges are concerned.

    Have you had a personal experience?

    When I was much younger, about 20 years ago, I went to the Court of Appeal, then presided over by the present Emir of Ilorin. I got there and they had pasted something at the gate, after I had left my office. So, I wrote a stinker to him, which he did not take well. He too wrote a stinker back and when next I appeared before the court they gave me hell in a case I was handling before them. But that’s not the right spirit. They were wrong. So, for me, what they should do is cut down on holidays, be more sensitive about their role in the society, and be more concerned about the fate of parties, who want their cases to end. They should also show more respect to lawyers, because when you leave the court without notice that you’re not going to be there and a lawyer comes, that’s an insult to that lawyer. You’re both lawyers for goodness sake. That you’re on the Bench doesn’t make you a different person. That lawyer can become a judge tomorrow. That is lack of respect! And it’s very bad.

    What else can be done to address delays?

    To conclude this part, because it’s a very important point you’re raising, the cases that are outstanding are so many. They go on for 10 years and yet are not concluded. There is need for them to be conscious of this. There is need for the government to provide recording equipment. If you go to London, where I have appeared several times as an expert witness on Nigerian law, the judge has a computer in front of him, and there is a lady who is recording in addition to the computer, and the judge is very relaxed because he is asking questions and not writing anything – very relaxed. At the end of the day, before you go, you get the proceedings. They just roll it out of the computer and you take it home. So, you can see that the judges are living longer; they’re fresher. The judges here have to take everything by hand. You say something, they’ll write. You have to wait for them, and speak very slowly because you know they can’t write at the rate at which you’re speaking. So, it takes a long time. There is strain; they suffer from all sorts of diseases – back diseases, brain diseases as a result. So, we must – there’s no choice – introduce recording equipment. That will hasten proceedings.

    Is a funding problem?

    Some courts too are not very honest. At times the vote is prepared and given to them to buy these equipment; they will not buy it. The next year, they will apply again for another vote on the same thing. That is also there. There are lots of problems. We just have to sit down and think of the people of this country; think of the service we’re delivering as one major arm of government and be proud of what we’re doing. As it is now, they cannot be proud. None of us is proud of what is happening now, because cases are taking so long. It’s scandalous. Some cases take over 20 years. The Supreme Court is so congested now that if you file an appeal, don’t expect it to be heard in five years. It’s not good. For me, it’s a failed system that is being run now. The Chief Justice, the National Judicial Council and all these top judges should meet and think of a way out. Maybe one other thing they can do to help them is to have clerks made up of young, brilliant law graduates attached to them to do their research and even write their preliminary judgments, which the judge will then go through and improve upon. But they need to get together and do something.

    What is your reaction to claims that the anti-graft war is selective, and that the focus seems to be on those in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)?

    No. The PDP was in power from 1999 to 2015. They were the ones who had access to Nigeria’s assets and resources. And they had an inclination and orientation of simply helping themselves to state assets without looking back. I mean, it was just a horrible thing. I’ll just give you one example. When they were there, they were fraudulently obtaining petroleum subsidy amounting to N380billion a year, saying they had supplied petroleum products, which they never supplied. You’ve seen all the recoveries that have been made. Look at what they did during the elections when Diezani brought her billions to bribe INEC officials all over the place, including Rivers State. That’s why I laugh when Wike says he has been elected. The Rivers State chief electoral officer was bribed. And she deliberately distorted that election and ensured that it was rigged in favour of Wike. A lot has happened since then. Our reserves dropped from over about $50billion to less than $2billion. They were spending money like water. In the last days, Jonathan was travelling round the West, dolling out huge amounts of dollars to Obas and so on. Look at the former National Security Adviser; look at the amount of money, just walking into Central Bank to take away $46million in sacks. It was so primitive and brazen. That is why they are the ones being prosecuted; because their impunity was so high that I don’t think it’s been experienced in this country before.

    Some still say the EFCC only goes after those in the PDP. They say for instance, Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom was accused of corruption after his defection to PDP. Consequently, the state’s account was frozen . To them, the EFCC is being used as a political tool. Are you worried about that?

    No, I’m not worried at all about that. There must be a good reason they went after him. I don’t have the details. But that man himself…I don’t want to say much. This is a man, who says today oh I’m going to PDP, tomorrow he says no I’m not going again. Then the third day he said I’m gone. And not that he went on his own volition. He said youths forced him… I mean, what sort of human being is that? Is he fit to be governor, a man who doesn’t have his own mind? So I don’t know what he’s done with security money.

    Critics said these issues didn’t come up while he was in APC…

    You’re right, but I can tell you one thing. The EFCC from what I know is investigating all former governors and keeping a tab on serving ones. It has their records, and progressively, given its capacity, one by one, they’re going to be called to answer. There’s nothing they can even do to him. He can’t be arrested. They can investigate him, put down the records of what they found, waiting for him to finish his tenure. Right now nobody can touch him. As for freezing Benue State’s account, I can’t support it. I don’t know why, but the government has to function. I don’t want people to suffer because there are no funds for basic government functions. I don’t know if they really did that; we have to be careful because it looks extreme to me.

    Some still wonder where all the huge recoveries made by the Federal Government are going. How is the money being spent?

    This issue has been explained again and again and again. This money, one, is being paid to the Central Bank, every kobo. This is Buhari’s government for goodness sake. This is not PDP. Every kobo is being paid to the Central Bank. And in the last two years, N1trillion has been withdrawn from it. For last year, N500billion was used to pay N5,000 each to the poorest households in this country based on the United Nations standards, which was scientifically followed, to get them out of nothingness. The Federal Government is feeding 10.5 million school children every day; children, who otherwise would not have had any nutritious meal. In fact, because of that, enrolment has gone up. Many parents are sending their children to school so that they can eat. It’s going to increase because not all states have joined. As a result, cooks have been given employment – a large number of cooks. Egg sellers all over the country are supplying eggs. Farmers are making sales. The multiplier effect has been tremendous. Young men, who have no skills are being trained and they’re paid N30,000 a month for the period of the training. A lot of young people, particularly women and young farmers, who need capital for their little businesses are being loaned N300,000 each without interest. All they need to do is to pay back the principal sum for their businesses to grow. That’s what the money is being used for. The money is not just being spent. It is budgeted for and approved by the National Assembly.

    What is your reaction to the Department of State Services (DSS) siege on the National Assembly, which prevented lawmakers from accessing it?

    It is most embarrassing. I was watching television when suddenly we saw DSS men blocking people from entering the National Assembly. My initial reaction was that this must have been ordered by the Presidency to avoid violence because we heard some people were going to invade the place. But I was shocked later to find out that there was no such directive; that in fact, it was the initiative of the DSS itself, which is totally illegal. They don’t have that power. They’re supposed to operate under the President’s directive. So, what they did was grossly illegal. They portrayed us in a very bad light, and shutting down parliament in effect. Parliament could be shut down in order to avert worse things. If  PDP and APC are going to exchange blows, destroy things and kill themselves, the place could be shut down. But that was not happening. What DSS did was unconstitutional, illegal, and was against the interest of Nigeria as a democratic country. And as soon as the Acting President got to know, he took immediate steps, ordered them out of the place, and of course, dismissed the head of the DSS for doing such a patently illegal thing.

    Nigerians have criticised the Buhari administration for not responding to the allegation that Finance Minister Mrs Kemi Adeosun skipped the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) programme and forged an exemption certificate. What do you think?

    Let me tell you this. I don’t know why the government has not reacted. But, let me tell you my reaction. This woman is a brilliant and extremely valuable member of this government. A lot of the good things happening now – the welfare that Nigerians are enjoying or are going to enjoy, because it takes time, and the way our economy is booming, how we got out of recession – are due to her expertise, her commitment, her sacrifice. There is nothing in this world that will make me remove such a woman from the government. The PDP can weep from now until there is no tear in their body; she is going to be there. We cannot afford to lose that woman.

    What about the allegation that she skipped Youth Service?

    Youth Service…Who cares about Youth Service? I don’t bloody care whether she did Youth Service or not. It is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

    What about the allegation that she forged an exemption certificate?

    I don’t believe it. I don’t see anything serious about not doing Youth Service. I don’t see anything serious about it. That’s my own bias, not government’s. I’m telling you now. If you ask me – if I were President Buhari, I would never, ever touch that woman because she’s damn good. The enemies of this government want to reduce his capacity to provide good governance by engaging in social media attacks and trying to get rid of her. It will not work.

    But the government is not reacting, don’t you see it as an issue?

    I don’t know why. Governance continues.

    But if the law says every Nigerian under 30 must serve their fatherland, isn’t it a violation of the law to skip NYSC? 

    I have nothing against anybody taking part in NYSC. Why not? That is what the law requires. What I am saying is that if, per chance, somebody for some reason misses it, that’s not the end of the world. I did not do NYSC; I graduated before it was introduced. And it hasn’t affected me negatively in any way. So, I’m not going to allow bad belle PDP-type to try to reduce the capacity of this government to do good things and bring welfare to the people of this country by removing a very valuable member of this government. Let me put it this way. I look at the whole picture. If you remove Adeosun from this government, it will adversely affect the government and, therefore, adversely affect the welfare and well-being being enjoyed by this country because of her work. So, I’m not going to allow a little quirk about NYSC to affect that greater value that she is rendering to this country. I am saying that if I were the President, I will not bat an eyelid over that. But that does not mean I am downplaying the importance of the NYSC. No. But I am not going to allow it upset the functioning of the government. Every rule has an exception. There is no rule that is absolute. There are many people in this  country today who didn’t do NYSC and they’re working one way or the other because they have a good reason for not serving.

    Another burning issue is whether Senator Bukola Saraki should relinquish his position as Senate president having defected from APC to PDP…

    As a matter of honour.

    Not as a matter of law?

    No, no, he’s not compelled by law to do so. He needs to be removed by two-thirds majority. But as a matter of honour. He got there because he was in APC even though he got there by subterfuge, which is typical of him. He got there in a cheeky, fraudulent manner. Nevertheless, for him to be removed, they need a vote of two-thirds, not of the Senate, but of those present and voting at a meeting. So, it doesn’t have to be everybody. It’s those who happen to be there. Once they meet the quorum of one-third, and he is there, he can be removed by two-thirds of that one-third.

    What is your message to Nigerians ahead of 2019 elections?

    Nigerians don’t appear to appreciate that they’re very lucky to have the present government; that they have a government that is totally committed to the welfare of this country. I think probably since the First Republic and perhaps during the Murtala Mohammed regime and of course, the first coming of Buhari, we’ve never had a government of this type where everybody is charged to sacrifice at little or no expense to the government for this country; where there is zero tolerance for corruption; zero tolerance for self-help; where you have a group of highly committed Nigerians, who are experts in their fields trying to raise us from the pit into which the PDP has pushed us.

    If we don’t allow this government to continue – I call it the government on the rescue – for four years at least, beyond 2019, then this country is doomed. We’re very lucky to have the team we have now. And it is in our own interest to support them to achieve the goals they have set for this country. I always say that if I were Buhari, I probably would have thrown in the towel out of anger. I’m short tempered when I see the way Nigerians are not showing appreciation for the good that is being done. Let us eliminate those, who benefited from corruption, and they’re many – the elite, people in our own class, they were the ones sharing the money. There was easy money. We need them to get back what we have lost and to build on that to begin to gradually move away from this status of underdevelopment.

    If you see all the projects – when did you go to the East last?  Enugu-Onitsha, the East-West Road, railways, the airports are being upgraded, so much is being done. Abuja has its own city rail. Then there’s a train from Abuja to Kaduna. There’s one from Lagos to Ibadan, virtually completed. They’re going to build one from Port Harcourt through the East to Maiduguri. There is so much going on under this government and they’re borrowing money for a change, and every kobo of it is accounted for. They’re borrowing and putting it in projects that will yield money eventually because we’re going to pay when we enter these trains. All these roads – some will be tolled, and the money will be gradually repatriated to the lenders. And the people of Nigeria will enjoy a high standard of living that we’ve never been used to.

    They’re trying to inculcate a culture of integrity and honour, where Nigerians will work hard for what they earn, not to go and steal, grab and loot as has been the case so far. So, if we miss this government, if there’s any mistake and it doesn’t come back in 2019, I say good luck to Nigerians.

  • Acja and preservation of constitutional safeguards

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

    Tackling abuse of Stay of Proceedings in India

    The case of OlisahMetuh v FRN is revolutionary for outlawing stay of proceedings in criminal trials and upholding the constitutionality of section 306 of ACJA, 2015.  We ought to commend the Supreme Court for the courageous decision and the controversy against the ruling is needless and groundless.

    The concern that has arisen from the abuse of stay of proceedings to stall criminal trials may not have been peculiar to Nigeria. In India, the Supreme Court ruled that a stay of proceedings by an appellate court in any pending trial to either corruption or civil or criminal cases shall not operate for more than six months without a speaking order.  The justification as observed by the court is that the “cancer of corruption has eaten into the vitals of the state and needed to be nipped in the bud.”  Secondly, the other justification is that the power to stay the trial of proceedings has to be exercised with ‘restraint’ particularly in corruption cases. In further providing justification for the ruling and condemning the element of delay in the criminal trial process particularly as it relates to corruption, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows:

    “It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the Prevention of Corruption Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest.  Delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system.  It affects social welfare and development…Even in civil or tax cases it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint.  Mere prima facie case is not enough.  Party seeking stay must be put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay. The order granting stay must show application of mind. The power to grant stay is coupled with accountability.”

    Clearly from the foregoing the constitutional mandate of expeditious disposal of a trial should be respected.

    The India template may have laid down the time limit for the stay of proceedings to six months but our Supreme Court in the Olisah Metuh v FRN did not impose any such time limit but ruled in favour of outright ban of stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

    This is consistent with statutory provisions as enshrined under section 306 ACJA and section 40 of the EFCC Act.  This may also have arisen as a result of the fragrant abuse of stay of proceedings by counsel to stall the progress of criminal cases.

    As Professor YemiAkinseye George puts it:

    “Prior to Metuh, the Nigerian criminal justice system had literally become a failed system principally on account of its painful and pathetic inability to conclude High Profile Criminal Cases, particularly those involving politically-exposed persons (PEPs). Such cases dragged on interminably in the justice system…”

    This is a major source of concern which the Supreme Court decision in OlisahMetuh v FRN sought to address frontally, and I dare say, courageously.

    Summary of arguments

    The impact of the revolutionary decision of the Supreme Court in OlisahMetuh v. FRN are far-reaching.

    • The effect of the combined provisions of sections 306 of the ACJA, 2015 and 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act2004 is that no court has the power to stay proceedings in criminal trials.
    • The effect of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act is limited to making an interim order or grant any injunction which the court below is authorized to make or grant and does not cover powers to order stay of proceedings in a criminal trial which are outlawed by sections 306 of the ACJA and 40 of the EFCC Act.
    • Stay of proceedings in criminal trials is incompatible with the spirit and letters of section 36(4) of the Constitution which provides that ‘any person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time’.
    • The attitude of court as evidenced by the recent practice direction issued by respective heads of court is to fast track trials of cases involving corruption, economic and financial crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, rape, kidnapping and terrorism amongst others.
    • Section 6(6)(b) of the constitution of FRN (as amended) does not confer specific powers on the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings in criminal trials.
    • Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act cannot be invoked to stay proceedings in criminal trials as such exercise of powers is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court and by extension the Court of Appeal.
    • Delay of criminal trial proceedings is dangerous to justice delivery system. When proceedings are stayed, trials of cases are delayed. In many cases vital witnesses may have died, evidence may have been tampered with etc. in the end, justice is defeated.
    • The argument that the decision outlawing stay of proceedings in criminal trials infringes right of appeal of the defendant is not correct. There is a distinction between stay of proceedings and right of appeal. The defendant is at liberty to raise whatever issues he/she is aggrieved about during the trial process on appeal at the end of the case, which right of appeal is still constitutionally guaranteed to the defendant. Consequently, the fact that the defendant is not allowed to stay proceedings does not translate to the erroneous view that his right of appeal is no longer guaranteed. The point being made is that stay of proceedings is antithesis of speedy trial guaranteed by the constitution. If the constitution advocates speedy trial, why emphasize stay of proceedings at the expense of speedy trial process?
    • Closely related to this argument is the fact that the decision outlawing stay of proceedings is not peculiar to criminal trials. It is also adopted in election petition proceedings and it has been assisting tremendously in delivering speedy trial process. If Counsel has no difficulty with compliance in election petition proceedings why should stay of proceedings in criminal trials be different?
    • Rather than advocate for right to stay proceedings, the emphasis in my view, should be on advocacy for constitutional timeframe for concluding criminal trials. It is also important to monitor security and investigative agencies in delivering on quality investigation. In many instances, cases are lost on account of poor investigation.
    • Significantly, we should enhance the quality of investigation outcomes. The first proposal that I wish to make is that no case should be taken to court without proper investigation no matter the extent of public outcry. Secondly, emphasis should be placed on investigation led arrests as opposed to arrest led investigations. Thirdly, arraignment of suspects in court should be based on verifiable, conclusive and supportable findings arising from diligent investigations. Fourthly, investigators must be available at all times to give evidence in proof of the outcomes of the investigations. Fifthly, investigators must carry out all necessary steps including obtaining all relevant evidential materials in support of investigations.  It is also important to guarantee the security and welfare of investigators including potential witnesses as well as sensitive documents in aid of the trial process.  More importantly, it is important that the investigation process is adequately monitored to forestall compromise and severe sanctions should apply in the event of breaches. The other element that should be guaranteed is the security of evidential materials recovered during investigations if possible ensuring that such materials do not fall into private hands who could be subject of attacks targeting of course the recovery of those documents. It is also important to constantly test the character, integrity and moral standards of investigators including ensuring availability of up to date training programmes for investigators. There should also be stiffer penalties available to officers who deliberately bungled investigations for pecuniary or other vested interests. My final take on this is to call for a code of ethics to be put in place for all categories of investigators as a policy framework
    • There is urgent need to domesticate the ACJA across the states of the federation to ensure speedy justice delivery. Nigeria stands to benefit quick dispensation of justice and observance to human rights, if the provisions of administration of criminal justice act are domesticated and implemented in states across the country.
    • Advocates of stay proceedings in criminal trials are quick to rely on the FRN v. Dr. Bukola Saraki where the Apex court granted stay of proceedings. Significantly, that case was distinguished by the Supreme Court in the Olisah Metuh v FRN’s case and the reasoning behind the distinction can hardly be faulted.

    Significantly, the apex court’s decision in FRN v. Dr. Bukola Saraki’scase respectfully can be criticised in the light of the provision of section 306 of the ACJA and section 40 of the EFCC Act outlawing stay of proceedings in criminal trials.

    The question may be raised whether one is permitted to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Dr. Bukola Saraki? The right to criticise judgment of courts is part of the fundamental right of every citizen of freedom of expression in section 39 of the Constitution.  What is not allowed is any attempt to scandalise the court or raise allegation of impropriety or misconduct  without proof. Indeed, the Supreme  Court has always appreciated constructive criticism of its decision having regards to their finality and overall impact on the nation’s legal system. In Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250 at 274-275, the revered Chukwudifu Oputa JSC alluded to the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court when he said that “we are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of the Court are human beings capable of erring.  It will be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth.  It is also true that this court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions.  Similarly, the court incalculable harm through its mistakes.”

    Late Justice Kayode Eso also acknowledged the right to criticise judgments of the Supreme  Court in the case of Adigun v Governor of Oyo State (No. 2) 2 NWLR (Pt.56) 197 at 214 – 215 when His Lordship held that

    “the decision of the Supreme Court is final.  Final in the sense of real finality in so far as the particular case before it is concerned. It is final forever, except there is legislation to the contrary, and it has to be a legislation ad hominem”. In recognition of the enormous powers of the apex court, Justice Eso was of the view that “It is such dread powers that must necessitate great care in the caliber of the Court and such dread that must necessitate pungent and constructive analytical criticism of every judgment of the Court in the law Journals and similar fora.” In reaction to the view of some judges and lawyers that it is contemptuous to subject decisions of courts to criticism, Justice Eso stated that “the judgment of a court should not be treated with sacred sanctity, once it gets to the right critical forum”.

    In the light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in OlisahMetuh v FRN, the case of FRN v. Dr. BukolaSaraki cannot be relied upon to stay proceedings in criminal trials.

    The attitude of the court has been to discourage frivolous interlocutory appeals at the expense of the merits of substantive matters. Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Practice Directions 2013, provides that “the courts shall refuse to hear appeals arising from interlocutory decisions of the court below where the matter deals with any of the issues in 3 above and the court is of the opinion that the grounds raised in the appeal are such that can conveniently be determined by way of an appeal arising from the final judgment of the court below.” Instead of entertaining interlocutory appeals, the Court of Appeal may order the trial court “to accelerate hearing in the substantive suit.”

    Order 10 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013 is in parimateria with Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Practice Directions, 2013. It provides that the apex court “will only determine applications which cannot be taken with the substantive appeal.” For the avoidance of doubt, each Panel of the Supreme Court shall take all steps “to reduce the time spent on hearing and determination of interlocutory applications both at the trial court and appeal and in the process minimize avenues for parties to make use of interlocutory applications as a means to frustrate or delay the expeditious conduct of cases at the Courts below.”

    It is clear from the foregoing, that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal had, before the enactment of ACJA, adopted measures to discourage parties and their counsel from resorting to interlocutory appeals to frustrate the hearing and determination of cases of economic crimes and terrorism. Consequently, the abolition of stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals cannot be said to be illegal and unconstitutional.

    Conclusion

    The legal reasoning and justification behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Olisah Metuh v FRN can hardly be faulted particularly because the decision cohered with existing principles and authorities mainly sections 306 of ACJA and section 40 of the EFCC Act respectively.  The second reason for the justification of the decision concerns the broader consequences of the decision for the administration of justice and the broad philosophy of speedy trial process.

    The Supreme Court in the Olisah Metuh Vs FRN may have addressed the problem of delay caused by stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals, but are these the only causes of delay in the trial process? In a recent report, the Justice Galadima-led Committee has identified the root causes of delay in criminal trials to include: Poor investigation, weak prosecution, lack of witnesses, poor funding and subversion of ethics by defence lawyers amongst others. We need to reflect on all of these if we are genuinely concerned about accelerating the pace of criminal trial proceedings.

    As officers in the temple of justice, our preoccupation should be the attainment of justice at every opportunity and it is certainly not ethical and professional to deploy our legal training and expertise to defeat the ends of justice.

    The other point that I need to make is that delay in trial proceedings is a stakeholders problem and nearly all involved in the criminal trial process are culpable – defence counsel, prosecution counsel, investigative agencies, the court system, and the blame is mainly attitudinal. The challenge is how do we legislate against negative attitude from the stakeholders? One other challenge is how to explore the advantage conferred by section 306 ACJA in reducing negative deployment of interlocutory appeals to stall the criminal trial process by counsel.

    As law officers, we all have a duty to reverse this negative trend and the Supreme Court may have started the revolution by its decision in OlisahMetuh v FRN.

    However, the impression must not be created that it is only defence counsel who frustrate trial court proceedings. We need to be honest with ourselves to recognise that prosecutorial agencies frustrate trial proceedings by needless delays to arraign suspects in court thereby leading to congestion of our prisons to the prejudice of defendants.  Moving forward, it is necessary to design a mechanism for checking these seeming excesses of the prosecution in the criminal trial process in line with best practices. In the UK for example where there has been a substantial delay in bringing a prosecution, the court may stay or halt further proceedings as an abuse of process. This may take care of the plight of awaiting trial inmates who are detained in our prisons without being brought to trial and also assist in decongestion of our prisons.  It is submitted that such awaiting trial inmates of our prisons could halt their trials on the ground of unjustifiable delay and likely prejudice to the trial process on account of that unreasonable delay. In such circumstances, the court will consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the right against delay was asserted by the defendant and whether there has been any prejudice to the defendant as enshrined under article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Right.  We may need to replicate similar provisions in our statute books to forestall irresponsible prosecution or abuse of prosecutorial powers.

    My view is that following the UK example and the template of article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and reinforcing our constitutional provision prescribing trial of the defendant within a reasonable time, it is recommended that trial courts should have the jurisdiction to stay further proceedings where there has been a substantial delay in bringing a prosecution in circumstances clearly suggesting gross abuse of the process to the prejudice of the defendant.  This will be consistent with the philosophy of even-handed justice where justice is delivered not only in favour of the state, the victim but also the defendant. I so propose.

    Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court in OlisahMetuh v FRN in outlawing stay of proceedings in criminal trials may have initiated a revolution for reform of our criminal justice system and as counsel we need to key ourselves into the revolutionary movement by being not just counsel of knowledge and professionalism but essentially, by being counsel of virtue with respect for values and high ethical standards.

    • Shittu is EFCC External Prosecuting Counsel and Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG) & currently a Postgraduate (Ph.D.) Research Student as well as Principal Partner, W.K. Shittu & Co. (Legal Practitioners).

  • Acja and preservation of constitutional safeguards

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

    Decision promotes trials within a reasonable time

    it is my further submission that the decision in FRN v Metuh actually strengthens constitutional safeguards dealing with criminal trial within a reasonable time.

    In concluding the judgment, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Ogunbiyi observed as follows:

    “The Appellant/applicant’s motion for stay of proceedings is violently in conflict with the provisions of section 36 (4) CFRN 1999 (as amended), section 306 ACJA, 2015 and section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004 as well as the plethora of case law authorities cited.  The application is hereby refused and dismissed.”

    Per M. D. Muhammad, JSC also stated @ 180:

    “It is clearly not within the jurisdiction of the trial court to make the orders of stay of proceedings which application, following its refusal by both courts below, is further agitated at this court.”

    The significance of the decision of the Supreme Court in OlisahMetuh v FRN lies not only in its revolutionary impact but more fundamentally on its jurisprudential reasoning and force of justification. The Supreme Court decision in OlisahMetuh v FRN apart from holding the legality of the Section 306 of ACJA and Section 40 of the EFCC Act prohibiting court from staying proceedings in a criminal trial also held that the provisions of both laws do not contravene the Constitution.

    On the contrary, the court held that both provisions are in agreement with Section 36(4) of the constitution, which provides that any person charged with a criminal offence “shall be entitled to fair hearing in public within a reasonable time”. The court further held that it is only logical to interpret the spirit of the foregoing constitutional provision to translate that, where the grant of an application for stay will unnecessarily delay and prolong the proceedings, it should not be granted.

    1. iv) Decision distinguishes Olisah Metuh v FRN from Bukola Saraki v FRN

    The Supreme Court in distinguishing the Olisah Metuh v FRN’s case from the Supreme Court decision in BukolaSaraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) SC 531 held:

    “This court (the Supreme Court) pronounced also in OlubukolaSaraki v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) SC 531 that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is not a court of superior record of jurisdiction, but a court of quasi-criminal jurisdiction.

    “Therefore, the application of the cases to the circumstances of this case (Metuh’s case) cannot be relevant, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel to the first respondent (EFCC’s lawyer).”

    1. v) Decision reaffirms that the Supreme Court lacks powers to stay proceedings in criminal trials

    The court held that not even the Supreme Court has the power to stay proceedings in criminal trials thus:

    “The conclusion, as stated earlier, is predicated squarely on the contention of Section 306 of ACJA and Section 40 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, 2004, whereby the trial court lacks the powers to order for stay of proceedings; also the court below under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act as well as this court under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, also lacks the power to order for stay of further proceedings pending before the trial court.

    “I wish to emphasize that this is a criminal proceeding. There are also clear constitutional and statutory provisions that enjoin and mandate the trial court not to delay criminal cases.”

    1. vi) Decision complements recent practice directions issued by heads of courts

    Notably, the decision in Olisah Metuh v FRN is designed to fast track the criminal trial process. Recent practice directions issued by respective heads of court in relation to matters involving corruption, economic and financial crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, rape, kidnapping and terrorism would seem to support the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision in Olisah Metuh v FRN.

    I refer specifically to Federal High Court (Criminal Trials) Practice Directions, 2013, Court of Appeal Practice Directions 2013 and Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013 which are designed to achieve the objective of speedy criminal trial process – the essence being the elimination of delay and expeditious determination of criminal matters pending before the trial courts.

    vii) Decision Links Section 306 of ACJA 2015 to Section 24(5) of the old English Judicature Act, 1873

    The objective of speedy trial process was reemphasised by His Lordship Eko, JSC at 184 and 185 as follows:

    “Section 306 of the ACJA, 2015 is fashioned in the manner or wording of Section 24(5) of the old English Judicature Act, 1873, that until 1988 was a statute of general application applicable in this country. Section 2495) of the Judicature Act, 1873 provided that “no cause or proceeding shall be restrained by injunction”. Jessel, M, E., commenting on this phrase in Artistic Colour Printing Co.” in Re L. R. 14 Ch. D, 502 at page 505 stated:

    What does that mean? The court never did by injunction restrain a proceeding.  What it did was to restrain a party to the cause from going on.  Therefore, when the Act says “no cause or proceeding shall be restrained by injunction”, it means no party shall be restrained from going on ‘with his action.  This is what the Act means; otherwise) it would seem to imply that one branch of High Court had power to restrain another branch of High Court had power to restrain another branch”.

    In Hart v Hart L. R. 18 Ch. Div. 0670, at pages 679 – 681, it was forthrightly stated that the Judicature Act did forbid an injunction to restrain a pending judicial proceeding.  Section 306 of the ACJA, 2015, like section 24(5) of the Judicature Act 1873, does forbid an injunction to stay further proceedings in pending criminal proceeding or trial.  In the Indian case APPU v. Raman I.L.R. 14 Mad. 425 the rationale of the object for the English enactment, which I think very true for the Nigerian Statute, was said to be “to do controlling proceedings in other courts”.  Contemporary Nigerian history shows the widespread abuse of injunctive remedies to stall trials of high profile offenders in the country being crippled by corruption. That is the mischief that section 306 ACJA, 2015 is addressing.

    At common law, even the injunctions issued by the courts of Chancery in England for controlling proceedings in other suits are not orders issued to such other courts, but to the party being amenable to the jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction, and capable of being acted on by the process of contempt of court, and they are infact, orders in personam. Indian courts stated so in APPU v Raman (supra); VenkatesaTawker v. RamasamiChettair I. L. R. 18 Mad. 338 at 341.  Towing the same common law stance, this court in The Chief Registrar v Vamos (1976) 1 SC 33, had held that one superior court of record cannot issue an order of prohibition on another superior court of record.”

    viii) Decision forestalls abuse of stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals by counsel

    The other justification for the decision in FRN v Metuh is its capacity to reduce the spate of abuse of stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals.The guest speaker, Fidelis Oditah SAN, QC.at another forum lamented this development as follows:

    “… the main instrument for the delay and stifling of criminal proceedings (and to a lesser extent civil proceedings) in Nigeria is the interlocutory appeal …”

    It is in the sense of forestalling this abuse of interlocutory appeals that section 306 of the ACJA can better be appreciated.  This is because ‘section 306 has the potential to curb the misuse of interlocutory appeals to scuttle criminal trials…’

    Professor YemiAkinseye George, SAN in a recent article titled ‘should the Supreme Court revisit its ruling in Metuh v FRN – A case review’ observed as follows:

    “Section 306 is a pragmatic response to the embarrassing situation of interminable criminal trials foisted on the judiciary by a rapacious political class.  Most of the cases of abuse of interlocutory criminal appeals arose from cases involving high profile defendants with deep pockets.  They can afford to file as many interlocutory appeals as may be required to prevent the determination of the substance of the charges brought against them. The usual strategy is to couch the grounds of appeal as jurisdictional in nature with a view to forcing the trial court to give the appeal priority over the substantive matter before the court.  This is an abuse of the principle that a jurisdictional matter shall be given priority over other causes as they go to the root of the competence of the court. Unfortunately there are no clear guidelines for determining which objections are jurisdictional in nature. Virtually all the interlocutory criminal appeals were always couched as jurisdictional in nature or formulated as issues of law. An appellant is always at liberty to characterize his grounds of appeal as issues of law or of mixed law and facts…”

    It is however not to suggest that delays in criminal trial process are occasioned by stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals.  Poor investigation, weak prosecution, lack of witnesses, poor funding and wrong attitude of prosecution and defence lawyers are also fundamental factors.  These coupled with administrative, human, procedural and technical issues are also to be blamed for delays.

    Decision Ensures speedy trials in spite of appeal on rulings on no-case submission

    The impact of the Supreme Court decision in OlisahMetuh v FRN is indeed far-reaching.  It covers a situation where a trial court overrules a no-case submission who is then called upon to enter its defence.  In the event of the defendant filing an appeal against the ruling on no-case submission, such a defendant is not at liberty to stay proceedings on account of the appeal. In the Metuh’scase, the trial court overruled no case-submission.  The defendant filed an appeal and sought to stay proceedings before the trial court, the trial court refused the stay, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which also refused to grant stay of proceedings.  A further appeal on stay of proceedings was unsuccessful. The implication is that the use of the mechanism of stay of proceeding to stall proceedings is no longer permissible.  This will have the effect of fast tracking the criminal trial process.

    1. ix) Decision Strengthens fairhearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN (as amended)

    Secondly, the ruling will strengthen section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN (as amended) which provide for fair hearing in public within a reasonable time for any person charged with a criminal offence. This delivers on speedy trial objective within the framework of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. This means that stay of proceedings can no longer be used to unnecessarily delay and prolong criminal trial proceedings.  The court also noted that applications for stay of proceedings are in conflict with section 36(4) of the Constitution and Section 40 of the EFCC Act and Section 306 of the ACJA 2015.

    Kekere Ekun, JSC at page 181, paras. A-G: of the judgment held as follows:

    “It is pertinent to observe that the new dispensation throughout the hierarchy of our courts, as evidenced by the recent Practice Directions issued by respective heads of court in relation to matters pertaining inter alia to corruption, economic and financial crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, rape, kidnapping and terrorism, is to fast track the hearing and determination of such matters, see: Federal High Court (Criminal Trials) Practice Directions, 2013, Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013 and Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013. The explanatory note to the Federal High Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions States:

    ‘These Practice Directions establish a system of case management that will provide for the fair, impartial and expeditious administration of criminal cases arising out of cases listed in rule 2(1) of these Practice Directions and other related cases.’

    Rule 2(1) provides:

    ‘This Practice Direction shall, save to the extent and as many otherwise be ordered by the honourable Chief Judge apply to all criminal cases, particularly those relating to Terrorism, Kidnapping, Trafficking in Person, Rape, Corruption and Money Laundering cases.’

    The 2013 Practice Directions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively have the same objective.  This is not only in keeping with the constitutional requirement of a fair hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed to any person charged with a criminal offence, but also to forestall the frustration of criminal trials by mischievous defendants.”

    1. x) Decision defines scope of Section 6(6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) on inherent powers of courts

    The Supreme Court also took the view that section 306 of the ACJA 2015 does not derogate or impair the inherent powers vested in our courts under section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Specifically the court held on the point as follows:

    “Section 6(6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) does not confer specific powers on the Supreme Court to issue or grant an order or orders staying further proceedings in a criminal case.  This is so because the section only congers powers on courts to adjudicate matters between persons or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria with respect to their civil rights and obligations. (P. 176, paras. D-E).”

    1. xi) Decision Reiterates thatSection 15 of the Court of Appeal Act cannot be invoked to Stay Proceedings in Criminal Trials

    The Supreme Court also held that the powers of the Court of Appeal under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act cannot be invoked to stay proceedings in criminal trials.  Specifically, the court held:

    “The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, as provided for in section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, can be invoked only if the relief sought is that which comes within the jurisdiction of the trial court.  In other words, where the Court of Appeal acts in violation to the Act, the powers so exercised will be declared a nullity.”

  • Sagay: Not all whistleblowers will get five percent reward

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) on Friday said not all whistleblowers will get five per cent of recovered sum.

    According to him, the reward could be as low as one per cent of what is recovered depending on the amount.

    Minister of Finance Kemi Adeosun said the Federal Government has received 1,231 tips from whistleblowers since the policy was introduced in 2016.

    She said 791 investigations were commenced; 534 had been concluded, with N7.8billion, $378million and 27,800 pounds recovered so far.

    Sagay and Adeosun spoke in Abuja at an “Evaluation workshop on the whistleblower policy and the role of the inter-agency asset tracing team,” organised by PACAC.

    Adeosun was represented by Head, Presidential Initiative on Continuous Audit (PICA) and Whistleblower Unit of the Ministry of Finance, Dr Mohammed Dikwa.

    Sagay said Nigerians should be made aware that not every whistleblower would get five per cent of what is recovered.

    “One controversial issue in the policy is the question of remuneration. The public seems to be fixated on five per cent. But in fact, five per cent is the maximum.

    “It can be as little as one per cent, depending on the amount of money involved. It could be slightly more if it is an extremely large amount,” he said.

    The eminent professor of law described the whistleblower policy as “very successful”, adding that it was not limited to looted funds.

    “Things like breach of procurement practice, which is closely associated with corruption, and unapproved expenditure by agencies, are all subject of whistleblowing,” Sagay said.

    Read Also: Buhari’s revelation explains herdsmen puzzle, says Sagay

    Adeosun said the Whistleblower Team in her ministry went on a study tour of the United Kingdom and met with relevant agencies to learn best practices.

    “Following lessons learnt from the study tour, we will begin to focus more on preventive measures, putting in place tight control measures, making it more difficult for a few people to take away assets that belong to an entire country.

    “In addition to this, the investigation framework of the whistleblower policy will be reviewed.

    “We will continue to work with all stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of the policy and put in place required institutions and tools to achieve our objective,” she said.

    PACAC Executive Secretary Prof Bolaji Owasanoye said not all acts of whistleblowing attract reward.

    For instance, he said a situation where a planned fund diversion is stopped, there would be no financial reward for the person who gave the tip-off.

    He, however, urged Nigerians to view whistleblowing as a civil duty and a constitutional responsibility.

    “There is a duty to report, even without the five per cent reward,” he said.

  • Hurdles before anti-graft battle 

    One of the topmost goals the President Muhamm-adu Buhari’s administration has set for itself since May 2015 is to kill corruption in the country before it brings the country to its knees.

    Corruption has been defined in many ways to include giving bribe to an official in order to prevent a disclosure of truth, and embezzlement of public fund for personal use.

    It involves fraudulent conduct by those in power, including illegitimate use of power for selfish or personal interest.

    Corruption is also seen as any act which is considered to be criminal in line with the laws of a particular society.

    There is no doubt that corruption is one of Nigeria’s biggest challenges, which has been found in very high level at the various sectors of the society over the years.

    Many international organis-ations including the Transparency International have sever-ally ranked Nigeria high in corruption.

    In 1999, after the military era, Nigeria was ranked the second-most corrupt nation in the world as it came 98th out of a total of 99 countries covered by Transpa-rency International report.

    For the year 2000, Nigeria was declared the most corrupt nation after Transparency International carried out a survey on the corruption levels of 90 countries. In the survey Nigeria occupied the 90th position in terms of transparency.

    The following year, Nigeria was ranked the second-most corrupt nation in the world as it came 90th out of 91 countries. That year, Bangladesh was the most corrupt country.

    In the year 2002, Nigeria was again ranked the second-most corrupt country in the world, after a survey  carried out among102 countries. Nigeria ended up occupying the 101st position in terms of Confidence Interval (CI).

    Nigeria, in the year 2003 retained the same ranking as the second-most corrupt country in the world.

    In a survey of 146 countries in the year 2004, Nigeria was ranked better than the previous four years as it became the third most corrupt country in the world better than Bangladesh and Haiti.

    Out of 158 countries surveyed by Transparency International in the year 2005, Nigeria was ranked as the eighth most corrupt nation.

    Out of 163 countries surveyed in the year 2006, Nigeria was ranked as the 21st most corrupt country in the world.

    In 2007, Nigeria was ranked 33rd most corrupt country in the world as it came 147th out of the 180 countries surveyed.

    While it was on the 121st position out of 180 countries in the year 2008, Nigeria dropped to 130th position out of 180 countries studied in the year 2009.

    In the year 2012, Nigeria became the 37th most corrupt nation in the world as it was 143rd position out of 183 countries.

    In 2012, Nigeria was 35th most corrupt nation in the world as it was 139th out of the 176 countries surveyed.

    In 2013, Nigeria was ranked 33rd most corrupt country as it was 144th out of 177 surveyed countries in terms of transparency.

    For the year 2014, Nigeria was ranked 38th most corrupt country in the world coming 136th out 174 surveyed countries.

    In the year 2015, Nigeria was ranked 32nd most corrupt country in the world, retaining the 136th position out of 170 countries surveyed.

    It became 40th most corrupt nation in 2016 as it again retained the136th position out of the 176 countries surveyed.

    The latest Corruption Perception Index released by Transparency International for the year 2017 showed that Nigeria got backward by 12 steps in the fight against graft as it moved from 136th position the previous year to 148th  out of 175 countries surveyed.

    While the Presidency had earlier described the latest report as “fiction”, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo last Tuesday at the Dialogue of Organs of Government on Reform of Justice Sector and Campaign Against corruption, jointly organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) and Federal Ministry of Justice at the State House  Abuja,. had said that the report should not be seen as setback for Nigeria.

    At the same venue, the need to fight corruption to a standstill without lip service was again brought to the front burner last week.

    The opinion there was that only those who are not corrupt can truly fight corruption in the country.

    It also demands fighting corruption without any emotion or human face or partiality or selectivity.

    To really do better than other past administrations’ fight against corruption, the fight has been advised to be fought beyond mere lip service.

    The Chairman of PACAC, Prof. Itse Sagay, last Tuesday said “Fighting corruption cannot be lip service. You cannot be corrupt and be talking against corruption, it ridicules the whole exercise and the spirit of that struggle.

    “And so we should purge ourselves of corruption so that we can stand on firm ground to speak. Some might have been corrupt in the past but if you purge yourselves then you are welcome.

    “It ridicules the whole process when we see people waxing lyrical on anti-corruption whereas behind them, they have huge load of assets and other things which they corruptly acquired.

    “So, collaboration and cooperation is essential because we need each other in order to succeed. But I think I will rather work alone than work with a corrupt person who is not sincere and is just making a fool of the whole country whilst preaching like a pastor about corruption,” he stated

    There is no doubt that when corruption is squarely tacked in Nigeria, more resources will be freed for infrastructural development and to meet other common needs of the people

    It is also hoped that Nigeria’s backward trend in the Transparency International reports will be reversed at the end of 2018.

  • Appeal Court verdict on Nganjiwa self-serving, tragic, says Sagay

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) Chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) has described the Court of Appeal judgment striking out the charge against Justice Hyeladzira Nganjiwa as a “tragedy”.

    He said judges do not have immunity from prosecution for corruption.

    Sagay described the judgment as “a negative step”, adding that it was self-serving and not backed by the Constitution or any law.

    He disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s position that NJC must first discipline a judge before anti-graft agencies can step in.

    “That is purely self-interest, self-protection. There’s nowhere in the Constitution where that is stated.

    “Yes, there is provision for disciplinary measures by NJC over judges, but there’s nowhere in the Constitution that judges are given immunity from interrogation, arrest and prosecution.

    “Only the President, Governors, the Vice President and Deputy Governors are given immunity.

    “This is a creative judgment. In other words, the judges are making law, although they have no power to do that – taking over the power of the legislature in order to protect themselves from the consequences of their own misconduct. That’s what has happened. Judges are now a special breed of Nigerians.

    ““If you have a civil servant who can be interdicted in the civil service, is there any law that says he cannot be prosecuted? There’s no difference between a judge and a civil servant in this regard. They have their own internal cleansing system.

    “The NJC and the civil service have in-house provisions for dealing with their members. That does not affect the overall authority of the state. It’s contained both in the Constitution and in our criminal law.

    “So, what they have done is not in the law. It is a new law made by themselves. It is wrong because they have taken over the duties of the legislature.

    “It’s just to protect themselves from the consequences of misconduct and it’s a tragedy. And it’s an aspect of the underdevelopment of Nigeria and its rule of law process,” Sagay said.

    Sagay said the examples cited by the Court of Appeal about the Presidency setting up a panel to probe members of the executive before the EFCC stepped in, was inapplicable.

    “Those do not apply. The fact that the Presidency decided to set up a panel does not mean that EFCC could not have gone after them, at all. It doesn’t mean that. All the examples they have given are wrong.

    “There’s no example that can suspend the application of the Constitution and our criminal laws. None.

    “There are many occasions in which NJC was reluctant to discipline its men who have committed crimes, who have been corrupt or engaged in misconduct.

    “For instance, in the case of Justice (Adeniyi) Ademola, before he was arrested, he was cleared by the NJC. There are tens of such cases, which NJC turned down petitions in which there were concrete reasons to believe that they (the judges) did something wrong.

    “Are they saying the state should fold its arms and be looking on, because they’re reluctant to do the right thing?

    “I think the judgment is completely against the rule of law and it’s against our whole administration of criminal justice system, because it promotes a group of people above the law. And it’s a negative step,”

  • Anti-corruption struggle is a long distance race – Sagay

    Anti-corruption struggle is a long distance race – Sagay

    Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Professor Itse Sagay has asserted that the struggle of riddling the country against corruption is a long process.
    The distinguished professor of international repute maintained that since July 2015, the National Assembly has not passed a single bill for the promotion of the war against anti-corruption.
    “Bills such as the ” Whistle Blowers Protection Bill,” “The Proceeds of Crime Bill,” and the “Special Criminal Court Bill” remain in a virtual state of stagnation,” Sagay stated.
    Professor Itse Sagay also affirmed that there has been a gang up of powerful political, business and banking elite determined to frustrate the anti-corruption struggle.

    Related: Senators earn 3bn yearly – Sagay

    However, the professor allayed all fears by stating that there is light at the end of the tunnel due to the recent recovery of assets and elimination of the petroleum subsidy scam of #382 billion which has been sufficiently saved for proper use for the sake of the citizenry.
    He encouraged Nigerians to be a little patient with the present adminstration and applaud them for their work in the fight against corruption. He spoke of the administration of the Criminal Justice Act 2015, Non Conviction based Assets Recovery act and Recovery of property, special Provisions Act, 2004 that has been used to prosecute erring officials and citizens found guilty of corruption.