Why do cases still drag in court despite the coming of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015? The law is
supposed to check delays, but it has not achieved that in its
two-year existence. Stakeholders in the justice sector gathered in
Abuja to ascertain where the problem lies. According to speakers,
progress would be made if judges showed more courage, firmness and
did not indulge “tricky” defence counsel. Keynote speaker Justice
Helen Ogunwumiju of the Court of Appeal listed what judges must do
to change the negative perception of the judiciary. JOSEPH JIBUEZE
reports.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015 was
enacted to address delays in criminal trials. Despite the law’s
provisions, cases still drag in court.
The target time frame to conclude a trial under the ACJA is 180
days.
But, several cases that began since the law took effect are yet
to be decided.
Section 396 (3) of the ACJA provides that trial shall be
day-to-day until judgment.
Section 396 (4) says where day-to-day trial is not practicable,
each party is entitled to five adjournments of not more than 14
working days interval.
After exhausting the five adjournments, every other adjournment
shall not exceed seven days interval.
The overall objective is to ensure that a trial commences within
30 days of filing a charge and is completed within 180 days after
arraignment.
Speakers at a capacity building workshop organised for judges,
magistrates, area court judges and registars in Abuja agreed that
the courts must do more to enforce the ACJA.
The workshop’s theme is: Application of Practice Directions on
the Implementation of the ACJA 2015.
It was organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against
Corruption (PACAC) in collaboration with the High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory.
Speakers said it required courage and firmness on judges’ part
to enforce the ACJA.
According to them, while defence counsel would seek adjournments
at every opportunity in a bid to delay cases, using all manner of
excuses, it behooves the judges to take control of their courts and
not tolerate such shenanigans.
The four-day workshop had 14 sessions featuring group
presentations, training on case management and control of court and
proceedings, role of judges and registrars, among others.
Wanted: Stricter judges
The keynote speaker, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju of the Court of
Appeal, urged judges to take firm control of their courts so the
judiciary does not become the weakest link in law enforcement.
She said trials sometimes got so “complicated” and “hydra
headed” because judges allowed lawyers “to run the show”.
For instance, she suggested that a judge should not grant an
adjournment on the basis that an absent Senior Advocate of Nigeria
(SAN) would prefer to handle a case himself.
The SAN has juniors who are qualified lawyers, so they should
handle the case on their principal’s absence, she said.
She told judges: “Don’t allow anyone to abuse your leniency.
Don’t be fearful. Part of being a SAN is to have a junior.”
She noted that due to lack of firmness by judges, the trial
process is sometimes hijacked and judges become helpless “in the
face of various manoeuvres of the defendants and sometimes their
high-powered expensive lawyers.”
Most High Court judges, Justice Ogunwumiju said, have had to
adjudicate on cases involving high-profile defendants who come up
with “all manner of tricks” to avoid taking a plea at the
arraignment stage.
“All manner of objections are raised at this stage. There are
such trials that are yet to leave the plea stage, some even into
well over four years after they have been filed, which is contrary
to the spirit of the constitutional mandate of Section 36 (1) for
speedy trial and fair hearing,” she said.
What should judges do in such circumstance? Justice Ogunwumiju
recommended: “Some (defendants) say that they are physically unfit
to stand trial. Remand them at the state hospital until a doctor
gives them a clean bill of health.
“If they claim to be mentally ill, remand them at a state mental
institution. They will become well in a hurry. The panacea is to be
firm.”
In a situation where a defendant refuses to enter the dock on
the excuse of challenging the charge, Justice Ogunwumiju said the
court should refuse to entertain any application by the
defendant.
“It is not unusual to find that a defendant may, on the advice
of his counsel, refuse to enter the dock, thereby refusing to
submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
“Order 3 Rule 3 of the Practice Directions provides that
irrespective of any issues including but not limited to
jurisdiction, bail, etc, the defendant shall be called upon to
enter the dock and enter a plea.
“Where the defendant refuses to enter the dock to plead to the
charges, the court shall refuse to entertain any application and
where the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court shall enter
a plea of not guilty for him,” she said.
The Justice said an objection to the charge may be couched in
terms of being invalid or disclosing no offence.
Section 396 (2) of the ACJA, she said, gives judges the
discretion to adjourn ruling on such application until
judgment.
‘Don’t be taken for a ride’
Justice Ogunwumiju emphasised that the fact that someone was
granted bail is not a licence to allow a defendant and counsel to
delay trial.
She said: “A defendant who fails to appear in court for myriad
of reasons or excuses should be decisively dealt with. It is not a
valid excuse that a defendant had to go for medical treatment.
“The medical appointment should not have been scheduled to clash
with the court hearing.
“Religious obligations and the whipping up of religious
sentiments not to appear to continue trial should not be
tolerated.”
Justice Ogunwumiju recalled that she was a magistrate in Oyo,
she would not hesitate in revoking bail when she felt that the
defendant and his counsel “were trying to take the court for a
ride”.
According to her, where the prosecution was ready with their
witnesses, courts should not let the issue of bail delay the
commencement of trial.
“Defence lawyers engage in all manner of tricks to delay trial.
You are covered by Section 396 (2) of the ACJA. The court must
stand its ground. Hear them but defer ruling till the end of
trial,” she said.
‘Don’t grant stay of proceedings’
Justice Ogunwumiju said in no circumstance should judges grant
stay of proceedings pending appeal in criminal trial.
According to her, the pace of appeal litigation is slow, arduous
and discouraging.
An interlocutory appeal, she said, could take two years at a
minimum to be decided. It would take a further three years at least
at the Supreme Court.
Where a stay is granted, the defendant is assured of at least
five years of breathing space, which she said has unfortunate
consequences.
Witnesses, she said, could have died, have relocated, retired or
coerced into silence, even as their memory could fade.
Investigating officers could also have relocated; exhibits could
be lost. The judge may have retired, and trial may have to start
all over before a new judge. The defendant would have had enough
time to dissipate the proceeds of crime or cover his tracks.
Also, during the period that trial is suspended, the defendant
may have, according to Justice Ogunwumiju, blackmailed the system
by claiming witch-hunt, negotiated with or frustrated the
prosecution, peddled political influence, or secured an appointment
or won an election.
The solution? No granting of stay of proceedings, she said.
“What the trial judge needs to bear in mind is that the
fundamental rights are not necessarily infringed by his refusal to
stay proceedings as the defendant still has the option of applying
for stay at the Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court.
“The signs of the times dictate that absolutely NO STAY of
proceedings should be granted pending the determination of the
substantive matter.
“Most important to note is that whether you are presiding in the
area court or magistrate court, do not grant an application for
stay of proceedings,” Justice Ogunwumiju said.
The jurist said several trial-within-trials need not be
conducted for several statements purportedly made by the
defendants.
To her, as long as each statement is subjected to its own
peculiar trial, it is possible to conduct one trial for all the
statements.
“Your lordships should not stay proceedings if you overrule the
objection of the defence to the voluntariness of the statement of
the defendant even where the appellant goes on appeal,” she
said.
In no-case submissions, the Justice said there would likely be
an appeal where a ruling goes against the defendant, adding that an
appeal on a no-case submission is one of mixed facts and law which
require the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
“The High Court may refuse leave to appeal and proceed with the
trial until or unless the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal
and stay proceedings. I recommend that the trial courts should give
very short ruling on no case submission,” she said.
Avoiding frivolous injunctions
According to Justice Ogunwumiju, judges must be careful not to
be swayed by “brilliant” arguments of counsel to grant perpetual
injunctions against prosecution.
“Sometimes the arguments are ingenious and appear infallible and
you are perhaps wont to be swayed by them. You must have at the
back of your mind the need to do justice to the defendant, the
victim and the state.
“In cases of corruption, you and I are the victims and we are
part of the state,” she said.
She said granting an injunction stopping someone’s arrest or
prosecution is like tying the hands of 180 million Nigerians from
prosecuting one man.
Justice Ogunwumiju recalled that in the case of FRN vs
Igbinedion, she had to disagree with the trial judge by refusing a
motion asking for perpetual injunction restraining anti-graft
agencies, the police and the Attorney-General of the
Federation.
“I had at the back of my mind the seriousness of the offences
and the implications of granting the outrageous prayers being
sought by the defendants. I could not succumb to the very
persuasive legal arguments of defence counsel.
“I urge my Lords: Be careful in grating injunctions that appear
to bind the hands of the executive. That would be threading
dangerously on the executive arm of government whereas the
judiciary is supposed to enforce the doctrine of separation of
powers,” she said.
The Court of Appeal Justice urged members of the Bench to always
remember that justice is not just the application of bare law but
an instrument of social justice and positive social change.
Award punitive cost
Section 396 (7) of the ACJA provides that “in all
circumstances”, the court may award reasonable costs in order to
discourage frivolous adjournments.
“My humble interpretation is that where the court notices that
the prosecution or the defence seeks frivolous adjournments, it may
award costs against the state or prosecutorial authority.
“Where the defendant is asking for adjournment for frivolous
reasons, the court should revoke the bail and give good and lengthy
reasons for doing so.
“Let the defendant go on appeal before or after the trial
because the court revoked bail for good reasons,” Justice
Ogunwumiju said.
She recommended that immediately a charge is brought before a
judge, the court should build up a historical data, which would
facilitate a periodic review of the court’s performance.
Another means of ensuring speedy trials, she said, is for the
judge to consolidate rulings as opposed to delivering several
rulings in a case before the substantive matter has even been dealt
with.
‘Be above board’
The jurist urged judges to take firm control of their courts and
constantly monitor staff to ensure that there are no corrupt
activities.
“Most of us are too trusting or our staff. It is imperative that
the judge is not detached because of the likelihood of money being
collected in the name of the judge…The ability to walk tall is
priceless.
“Judicial officers in this regard are expected to live above
board and be free from undue political or monetary interference,
remaining an unbiased arbiter.
“It takes four parties to have a successful prosecution – the
complainant, the prosecution, the defence and the judge.
“As the judicial officer, we are to coordinate the other three.
We have to be on top our game,” Justice Ogunwumiju said.
The jurist said judges must “muster the courage and the will” to
utilise the ACJA to dispense justice as quickly as possible.
Judges, she said, should not be afraid of being overruled on
appeal for standing firm.
“My brothers and sisters, don’t be threatened by lawyers saying
they are going on appeal. Do what you think is right.
“If they don’t go on appeal, how will they know that you are
busy sitting till 6 pm and burning the midnight oil writing
judgments?” she said,
Justice Ogunwumiju urged judges to be get very acquainted with
the ACJA and other laws such as the Evidence Act, as according to
her, “an ignorant judge is a calamity for the innocent”.
“We must take back control of our courts. We are dominus litis
(master of a suit) in our courtroom. I have never been able to
understand how any court would allow counsel representing a client
get the opportunity to dictate the tune in the courtroom.
“The law has given the judge the power to dictate the tune for
lawyers and litigants to dance to. The judiciary cannot afford to
allow itself to become the weakest link in the enforcement of our
laws because the wheels of justice grind so slowly.
“It is my ardent hope that all chief judges will follow this
laudable example and enact similar Practice Directions in their
various jurisdictions,” she said.
A legal expert, Austin Emumejakpor, who gave an overview of the
FCT ACJA Practice Directions, noted that Order 14 of the Practice
Direction likens a judge to a referee.
The judge, he said, must take firm control of his court from the
onset to set the tone of the trial.
“Presiding judges should make counsel aware they are in charge
of their courts. Where appropriate, remind counsel of their duty,”
he said.
Emumejakpor urged judges to use their powers to award costs so
as to reduce delays and discourage frivolous applications for
adjournments.
CJ’s warning on remand order
FCT High Court Chief Judge, Justice Ishaq Bello, said judges
must not indulge prosecuting agencies who detain suspects while
fishing for evidence.
Before granting requests for extension of remand orders, there
must be reasonable justification for the extension, he said.
“I have observed that remand orders are just being granted as a
matter of course when the provision is express. I think we should
be more proactive, particularly when there is a second request.
“We must be able to find reasons; legitimate grounds as to why
the extension of the remand order earlier granted should be made.
This will check the excesses of the remanding authority,” he
said.
The CJ said ‘de-clogging panels’ would be set up to review
dormant criminal cases to be struck out.
“Over six months ago, I sent out a circular to all the
prosecuting agencies, that where they are aware of cases that
cannot be prosecuted, they should compile and have them struck out.
None of them responded.
“As soon as we’re able to set up this panel, we’re going to
strike out these cases. Judicial tolerance is being
overstretched.
“Because we keep on bending backwards on the ground that these
are cases of armed robbery, murder, the investigating authorities
tend to over-capitalise on that and keep seeking adjournments
without completing investigations. Cases tend to stay in court
unattended.
“By the time we have this panel, I assure you, we’re going to
throw out these cases, whether they’re armed robbery or murder
cases.
“If they choose to re-arrest, we’ll give them time-line to
complete the prosecution, because we must rescue the integrity of
the judiciary and the justice system. This we want to do,” he
said.
Challenges multi-dimensional
A PACAC member Prof Femi Odekunle, who chaired the event, said
as pervasive and institutionalised corruption is, and as damaging
as it is to the country’s economic and social development, it can
only be tackled within the bounds of rules, due process and fair
hearing.
Noting the fact that delayed justice means denied justice, Prof
Odekunle said there tends to be a dominance of ‘technical’ justice
over and above real justice.
“Wrongly, the blame for these deficits is put on the judiciary:
compromised, just lazy or incompetent.
“Yet, the reality of the problem is not one-dimensional. Rather,
it is multi-dimensional.
“For instance, judges cannot be blamed for the following:
archaic rules/regulations that literally ‘tie’ the hands of judges
and give room for the God-forsaken shenanigans of defence lawyers;
incompetent prosecutors further disabled by under-funding and
under-staffing or inadequate logistics, and investigators who by
default (and sometime by design) ignore to properly ‘service’ the
ingredients to prove an offence,” he said.
He said contrary to the perception “in certain quarters”, PACAC
“is not against the judiciary, the legal profession or any set of
judges or lawyers”.
“Yes, PACAC is furious against a few judges, and a few lawyers
who are sabotaging the anti-corruption fight – because the few not
only frustrate the fight, they also damage the diligent and honest
work of the so many good and hardworking judges of our
judiciary.
“Perhaps, needless to say, the conception and the enactment of
ACJA 2015 is to mitigate the untoward consequences of the system I
earlier highlighted.
“I must reiterate that any indication of animus between PACAC
and the judiciary is at the most charitable a ‘myth’ and at worst a
perception being propagated by the enemies of the fight against
corruption.
“If you needed any proof of this position, the collaboration’
between PACAC and the FCT judiciary on the conception and execution
of this workshop is proof-positive,” he said.
Culled: thenationonlineng
Why do cases still drag in court despite the coming of the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015? The law is
supposed to check delays, but it has not achieved that in its
two-year existence. Stakeholders in the justice sector gathered in
Abuja to ascertain where the problem lies. According to speakers,
progress would be made if judges showed more courage, firmness and
did not indulge “tricky” defence counsel. Keynote speaker Justice
Helen Ogunwumiju of the Court of Appeal listed what judges must do
to change the negative perception of the judiciary. JOSEPH JIBUEZE
reports.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) of 2015 was
enacted to address delays in criminal trials. Despite the law’s
provisions, cases still drag in court.
The target time frame to conclude a trial under the ACJA is 180
days.
But, several cases that began since the law took effect are yet
to be decided.
Section 396 (3) of the ACJA provides that trial shall be
day-to-day until judgment.
Section 396 (4) says where day-to-day trial is not practicable,
each party is entitled to five adjournments of not more than 14
working days interval.
After exhausting the five adjournments, every other adjournment
shall not exceed seven days interval.
The overall objective is to ensure that a trial commences within
30 days of filing a charge and is completed within 180 days after
arraignment.
Speakers at a capacity building workshop organised for judges,
magistrates, area court judges and registars in Abuja agreed that
the courts must do more to enforce the ACJA.
The workshop’s theme is: Application of Practice Directions on
the Implementation of the ACJA 2015.
It was organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee Against
Corruption (PACAC) in collaboration with the High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory.
Speakers said it required courage and firmness on judges’ part
to enforce the ACJA.
According to them, while defence counsel would seek adjournments
at every opportunity in a bid to delay cases, using all manner of
excuses, it behooves the judges to take control of their courts and
not tolerate such shenanigans.
The four-day workshop had 14 sessions featuring group
presentations, training on case management and control of court and
proceedings, role of judges and registrars, among others.
Wanted: Stricter judges
The keynote speaker, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju of the Court of
Appeal, urged judges to take firm control of their courts so the
judiciary does not become the weakest link in law enforcement.
She said trials sometimes got so “complicated” and “hydra
headed” because judges allowed lawyers “to run the show”.
For instance, she suggested that a judge should not grant an
adjournment on the basis that an absent Senior Advocate of Nigeria
(SAN) would prefer to handle a case himself.
The SAN has juniors who are qualified lawyers, so they should
handle the case on their principal’s absence, she said.
She told judges: “Don’t allow anyone to abuse your leniency.
Don’t be fearful. Part of being a SAN is to have a junior.”
She noted that due to lack of firmness by judges, the trial
process is sometimes hijacked and judges become helpless “in the
face of various manoeuvres of the defendants and sometimes their
high-powered expensive lawyers.”
Most High Court judges, Justice Ogunwumiju said, have had to
adjudicate on cases involving high-profile defendants who come up
with “all manner of tricks” to avoid taking a plea at the
arraignment stage.
“All manner of objections are raised at this stage. There are
such trials that are yet to leave the plea stage, some even into
well over four years after they have been filed, which is contrary
to the spirit of the constitutional mandate of Section 36 (1) for
speedy trial and fair hearing,” she said.
What should judges do in such circumstance? Justice Ogunwumiju
recommended: “Some (defendants) say that they are physically unfit
to stand trial. Remand them at the state hospital until a doctor
gives them a clean bill of health.
“If they claim to be mentally ill, remand them at a state mental
institution. They will become well in a hurry. The panacea is to be
firm.”
In a situation where a defendant refuses to enter the dock on
the excuse of challenging the charge, Justice Ogunwumiju said the
court should refuse to entertain any application by the
defendant.
“It is not unusual to find that a defendant may, on the advice
of his counsel, refuse to enter the dock, thereby refusing to
submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
“Order 3 Rule 3 of the Practice Directions provides that
irrespective of any issues including but not limited to
jurisdiction, bail, etc, the defendant shall be called upon to
enter the dock and enter a plea.
“Where the defendant refuses to enter the dock to plead to the
charges, the court shall refuse to entertain any application and
where the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court shall enter
a plea of not guilty for him,” she said.
The Justice said an objection to the charge may be couched in
terms of being invalid or disclosing no offence.
Section 396 (2) of the ACJA, she said, gives judges the
discretion to adjourn ruling on such application until
judgment.
‘Don’t be taken for a ride’
Justice Ogunwumiju emphasised that the fact that someone was
granted bail is not a licence to allow a defendant and counsel to
delay trial.
She said: “A defendant who fails to appear in court for myriad
of reasons or excuses should be decisively dealt with. It is not a
valid excuse that a defendant had to go for medical treatment.
“The medical appointment should not have been scheduled to clash
with the court hearing.
“Religious obligations and the whipping up of religious
sentiments not to appear to continue trial should not be
tolerated.”
Justice Ogunwumiju recalled that she was a magistrate in Oyo,
she would not hesitate in revoking bail when she felt that the
defendant and his counsel “were trying to take the court for a
ride”.
According to her, where the prosecution was ready with their
witnesses, courts should not let the issue of bail delay the
commencement of trial.
“Defence lawyers engage in all manner of tricks to delay trial.
You are covered by Section 396 (2) of the ACJA. The court must
stand its ground. Hear them but defer ruling till the end of
trial,” she said.
‘Don’t grant stay of proceedings’
Justice Ogunwumiju said in no circumstance should judges grant
stay of proceedings pending appeal in criminal trial.
According to her, the pace of appeal litigation is slow, arduous
and discouraging.
An interlocutory appeal, she said, could take two years at a
minimum to be decided. It would take a further three years at least
at the Supreme Court.
Where a stay is granted, the defendant is assured of at least
five years of breathing space, which she said has unfortunate
consequences.
Witnesses, she said, could have died, have relocated, retired or
coerced into silence, even as their memory could fade.
Investigating officers could also have relocated; exhibits could
be lost. The judge may have retired, and trial may have to start
all over before a new judge. The defendant would have had enough
time to dissipate the proceeds of crime or cover his tracks.
Also, during the period that trial is suspended, the defendant
may have, according to Justice Ogunwumiju, blackmailed the system
by claiming witch-hunt, negotiated with or frustrated the
prosecution, peddled political influence, or secured an appointment
or won an election.
The solution? No granting of stay of proceedings, she said.
“What the trial judge needs to bear in mind is that the
fundamental rights are not necessarily infringed by his refusal to
stay proceedings as the defendant still has the option of applying
for stay at the Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court.
“The signs of the times dictate that absolutely NO STAY of
proceedings should be granted pending the determination of the
substantive matter.
“Most important to note is that whether you are presiding in the
area court or magistrate court, do not grant an application for
stay of proceedings,” Justice Ogunwumiju said.
The jurist said several trial-within-trials need not be
conducted for several statements purportedly made by the
defendants.
To her, as long as each statement is subjected to its own
peculiar trial, it is possible to conduct one trial for all the
statements.
“Your lordships should not stay proceedings if you overrule the
objection of the defence to the voluntariness of the statement of
the defendant even where the appellant goes on appeal,” she
said.
In no-case submissions, the Justice said there would likely be
an appeal where a ruling goes against the defendant, adding that an
appeal on a no-case submission is one of mixed facts and law which
require the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
“The High Court may refuse leave to appeal and proceed with the
trial until or unless the Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal
and stay proceedings. I recommend that the trial courts should give
very short ruling on no case submission,” she said.
Avoiding frivolous injunctions
According to Justice Ogunwumiju, judges must be careful not to
be swayed by “brilliant” arguments of counsel to grant perpetual
injunctions against prosecution.
“Sometimes the arguments are ingenious and appear infallible and
you are perhaps wont to be swayed by them. You must have at the
back of your mind the need to do justice to the defendant, the
victim and the state.
“In cases of corruption, you and I are the victims and we are
part of the state,” she said.
She said granting an injunction stopping someone’s arrest or
prosecution is like tying the hands of 180 million Nigerians from
prosecuting one man.
Justice Ogunwumiju recalled that in the case of FRN vs
Igbinedion, she had to disagree with the trial judge by refusing a
motion asking for perpetual injunction restraining anti-graft
agencies, the police and the Attorney-General of the
Federation.
“I had at the back of my mind the seriousness of the offences
and the implications of granting the outrageous prayers being
sought by the defendants. I could not succumb to the very
persuasive legal arguments of defence counsel.
“I urge my Lords: Be careful in grating injunctions that appear
to bind the hands of the executive. That would be threading
dangerously on the executive arm of government whereas the
judiciary is supposed to enforce the doctrine of separation of
powers,” she said.
The Court of Appeal Justice urged members of the Bench to always
remember that justice is not just the application of bare law but
an instrument of social justice and positive social change.
Award punitive cost
Section 396 (7) of the ACJA provides that “in all
circumstances”, the court may award reasonable costs in order to
discourage frivolous adjournments.
“My humble interpretation is that where the court notices that
the prosecution or the defence seeks frivolous adjournments, it may
award costs against the state or prosecutorial authority.
“Where the defendant is asking for adjournment for frivolous
reasons, the court should revoke the bail and give good and lengthy
reasons for doing so.
“Let the defendant go on appeal before or after the trial
because the court revoked bail for good reasons,” Justice
Ogunwumiju said.
She recommended that immediately a charge is brought before a
judge, the court should build up a historical data, which would
facilitate a periodic review of the court’s performance.
Another means of ensuring speedy trials, she said, is for the
judge to consolidate rulings as opposed to delivering several
rulings in a case before the substantive matter has even been dealt
with.
‘Be above board’
The jurist urged judges to take firm control of their courts and
constantly monitor staff to ensure that there are no corrupt
activities.
“Most of us are too trusting or our staff. It is imperative that
the judge is not detached because of the likelihood of money being
collected in the name of the judge…The ability to walk tall is
priceless.
“Judicial officers in this regard are expected to live above
board and be free from undue political or monetary interference,
remaining an unbiased arbiter.
“It takes four parties to have a successful prosecution – the
complainant, the prosecution, the defence and the judge.
“As the judicial officer, we are to coordinate the other three.
We have to be on top our game,” Justice Ogunwumiju said.
The jurist said judges must “muster the courage and the will” to
utilise the ACJA to dispense justice as quickly as possible.
Judges, she said, should not be afraid of being overruled on
appeal for standing firm.
“My brothers and sisters, don’t be threatened by lawyers saying
they are going on appeal. Do what you think is right.
“If they don’t go on appeal, how will they know that you are
busy sitting till 6 pm and burning the midnight oil writing
judgments?” she said,
Justice Ogunwumiju urged judges to be get very acquainted with
the ACJA and other laws such as the Evidence Act, as according to
her, “an ignorant judge is a calamity for the innocent”.
“We must take back control of our courts. We are dominus litis
(master of a suit) in our courtroom. I have never been able to
understand how any court would allow counsel representing a client
get the opportunity to dictate the tune in the courtroom.
“The law has given the judge the power to dictate the tune for
lawyers and litigants to dance to. The judiciary cannot afford to
allow itself to become the weakest link in the enforcement of our
laws because the wheels of justice grind so slowly.
“It is my ardent hope that all chief judges will follow this
laudable example and enact similar Practice Directions in their
various jurisdictions,” she said.
A legal expert, Austin Emumejakpor, who gave an overview of the
FCT ACJA Practice Directions, noted that Order 14 of the Practice
Direction likens a judge to a referee.
The judge, he said, must take firm control of his court from the
onset to set the tone of the trial.
“Presiding judges should make counsel aware they are in charge
of their courts. Where appropriate, remind counsel of their duty,”
he said.
Emumejakpor urged judges to use their powers to award costs so
as to reduce delays and discourage frivolous applications for
adjournments.
CJ’s warning on remand order
FCT High Court Chief Judge, Justice Ishaq Bello, said judges
must not indulge prosecuting agencies who detain suspects while
fishing for evidence.
Before granting requests for extension of remand orders, there
must be reasonable justification for the extension, he said.
“I have observed that remand orders are just being granted as a
matter of course when the provision is express. I think we should
be more proactive, particularly when there is a second request.
“We must be able to find reasons; legitimate grounds as to why
the extension of the remand order earlier granted should be made.
This will check the excesses of the remanding authority,” he
said.
The CJ said ‘de-clogging panels’ would be set up to review
dormant criminal cases to be struck out.
“Over six months ago, I sent out a circular to all the
prosecuting agencies, that where they are aware of cases that
cannot be prosecuted, they should compile and have them struck out.
None of them responded.
“As soon as we’re able to set up this panel, we’re going to
strike out these cases. Judicial tolerance is being
overstretched.
“Because we keep on bending backwards on the ground that these
are cases of armed robbery, murder, the investigating authorities
tend to over-capitalise on that and keep seeking adjournments
without completing investigations. Cases tend to stay in court
unattended.
“By the time we have this panel, I assure you, we’re going to
throw out these cases, whether they’re armed robbery or murder
cases.
“If they choose to re-arrest, we’ll give them time-line to
complete the prosecution, because we must rescue the integrity of
the judiciary and the justice system. This we want to do,” he
said.
Challenges multi-dimensional
A PACAC member Prof Femi Odekunle, who chaired the event, said
as pervasive and institutionalised corruption is, and as damaging
as it is to the country’s economic and social development, it can
only be tackled within the bounds of rules, due process and fair
hearing.
Noting the fact that delayed justice means denied justice, Prof
Odekunle said there tends to be a dominance of ‘technical’ justice
over and above real justice.
“Wrongly, the blame for these deficits is put on the judiciary:
compromised, just lazy or incompetent.
“Yet, the reality of the problem is not one-dimensional. Rather,
it is multi-dimensional.
“For instance, judges cannot be blamed for the following:
archaic rules/regulations that literally ‘tie’ the hands of judges
and give room for the God-forsaken shenanigans of defence lawyers;
incompetent prosecutors further disabled by under-funding and
under-staffing or inadequate logistics, and investigators who by
default (and sometime by design) ignore to properly ‘service’ the
ingredients to prove an offence,” he said.
He said contrary to the perception “in certain quarters”, PACAC
“is not against the judiciary, the legal profession or any set of
judges or lawyers”.
“Yes, PACAC is furious against a few judges, and a few lawyers
who are sabotaging the anti-corruption fight – because the few not
only frustrate the fight, they also damage the diligent and honest
work of the so many good and hardworking judges of our
judiciary.
“Perhaps, needless to say, the conception and the enactment of
ACJA 2015 is to mitigate the untoward consequences of the system I
earlier highlighted.
“I must reiterate that any indication of animus between PACAC
and the judiciary is at the most charitable a ‘myth’ and at worst a
perception being propagated by the enemies of the fight against
corruption.
“If you needed any proof of this position, the collaboration’
between PACAC and the FCT judiciary on the conception and execution
of this workshop is proof-positive,” he said.
Culled: thenationonlineng
Read more https://www.nairalaw.com/wanted-fearless-judges-to-stop-tricky-lawyers/