Reps Move To Fast Track Criminal Justice System

*Bill To Allow High Court Judges

The House of Representatives on Wednesday moved to fast track
the criminal justice system in the country by passing for second
reading, a constitutional amendment bill that will allow judges of
the High Court who have been elevated to the Court of Appeal
conclude the criminal cases they were handling before their
elevation.

But members however believe that a time frame should be included
in the law for such cases to be disposed off by the concerned
judges before taking their new assignment.

The bill seeks to alter the 1999 constitution as amended to
provide for quick dispensation of justice and completion of
criminal matters being handled by a judge of a High Court before
his elevation to the Court of Appeal.

In 2020, the Supreme Court voided section 396(7) of the ACJA as
being unconstitutional, adding that a judicial officer cannot
simultaneously assume the role of a Justice of the Court Appeal and
still sit as a judge of the High Court, holding that such practice
was not within permissible constitutional boundary.

Sponsor of the bill, Rep. Onofiok Luke said it was a common
practice for judges of the High Court to be elevated to the Court
of Appeal whenever there is a vacancy, but was quick to add that
“when judges get elevated, criminal cases presided over by them
before they were elevated get stalled, and in fact, start de novo
(afresh).

“Owing to this unwholesome situation, this hallowed chambers in
conjunction with its sister legislative body, the Senate, passed
into law the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, as a
solution to that aspectual judicial problem.

“Specifically, section 396(7) legitimized the practice where a
judge appointed to the Court of Appeal can effectually return to
the High Court and continue to sit as a judge over criminal matters
he partly adjudicated before his elevation. This legislative
solution-cum-decision was an intelligent step towards discouraging
waste of time and resources, which often arises when criminal cases
start anew.”

He reminded the House that in 2020, “the Supreme Court, in its
supreme wisdom, struck down section 396(7) of the ACJA as being
unconstitutional.

“The Honourable Court reasoned that a judicial officer cannot
simultaneously assume the role of a Justice of the Court Appeal and
still sit as a judge of the High Court, holding that such practice
was not within permissible constitutional boundary.

“The Court’s view is principally anchored on the fact that
section 386(7) is a statutory provision, which cannot override
constitutional provisions. The decision of the Court has thrown up
myriads of problems and has sailed us back to a harbour of delay in
criminal adjudication which we thought we had left.

“It is in this vein that this constitutional proposal is made to
give dispensation to a judge of a High Court who has been elevated
to the Court of Appeal to continue to sit as a judge in order to
conclude part-heard criminal matter given the advantages it gives
to our judicial system. Since this is a constitutional alteration,
the supreme fate, which befell section 396(7) of the Act,
occasioned by the Supreme Court, will not befall this
constitutional proposal when passed into law.”

He said further that the bill will amend the “principal Act to
allow a judge elevated to the Court of Appeal to continue hearing
criminal matter part-heard by him before his elevation, assist in
just and fair hearing and determination of corruption and money
laundry matters, expedite justice dispensation and eliminate delay
in justice delivery and save parties to criminal proceedings from
unnecessary and avoidable costs and pains.”

However, Rep. Abubakar Fulata said the bill should not allowed
to sail through because it will create conflict of interest,
wondering how a judge will decide a case at the High Court and go
ahead to sit on an appeal on the same case.

But Rep. Ibrahim Olarenwaju said there was no conflict of
interest on the issue of the bill, stressing that there has often
been complaints of delayed justice in the country saying “when
justice is delayed, it is equivalent to justice denied.

He said “in most cases, criminal cases takes up to two years and
probably there is only one witness left or the court is adjourning
for judgment and the Judge is elevated. In most cases, when a Judge
is appointed, he is posted to a different judicial division
different from where he was appointed. Even if he remain there, all
he can do is to excuse himself from such a case.

“There can never be any conflict. If we don’t allow this bill to
sail through, we will be killing exactly what we are trying to
build. People are shouting that our justice is too delayed and we
want to fast track our trial system.

“There have been moved to establish special courts for criminal
trials only. We have not been able to do. Now, we are trying to go
in between. Judges who have almost completed a trial can come back
and complete the trial even after their elevation, deliver
judgement and go.”

Rep. Abdulrazak Namdas said judges that has been elevated to
higher courts should be given a specific period of about three
months to conclude the cases they are handling before assuming
their new status.

Rep. Chinyere Igwe said the object of the bill was to pave the
way for quick dispensation of justice, adding that the parliament
can use the bill to overhaul the criminal justice delivery system
in the country.

Deputy Speaker, Ahmed Idris Wase said “I am supposed to be
neutral. But I am tempted to ask, how can one judge sit in two
places? Without time limit, there will definitely be conflict of
interest and the judge can decide to sit on this case for
eternity.

“As long as we are trying to cure the disease in that aspect, I
think we should cure it properly. For a judge to sit in two
different courts at the same time should be looked into
properly.”

*Bill To Allow High Court Judges

The House of Representatives on Wednesday moved to fast track
the criminal justice system in the country by passing for second
reading, a constitutional amendment bill that will allow judges of
the High Court who have been elevated to the Court of Appeal
conclude the criminal cases they were handling before their
elevation.

But members however believe that a time frame should be included
in the law for such cases to be disposed off by the concerned
judges before taking their new assignment.

The bill seeks to alter the 1999 constitution as amended to
provide for quick dispensation of justice and completion of
criminal matters being handled by a judge of a High Court before
his elevation to the Court of Appeal.

In 2020, the Supreme Court voided section 396(7) of the ACJA as
being unconstitutional, adding that a judicial officer cannot
simultaneously assume the role of a Justice of the Court Appeal and
still sit as a judge of the High Court, holding that such practice
was not within permissible constitutional boundary.

Sponsor of the bill, Rep. Onofiok Luke said it was a common
practice for judges of the High Court to be elevated to the Court
of Appeal whenever there is a vacancy, but was quick to add that
“when judges get elevated, criminal cases presided over by them
before they were elevated get stalled, and in fact, start de novo
(afresh).

“Owing to this unwholesome situation, this hallowed chambers in
conjunction with its sister legislative body, the Senate, passed
into law the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, as a
solution to that aspectual judicial problem.

“Specifically, section 396(7) legitimized the practice where a
judge appointed to the Court of Appeal can effectually return to
the High Court and continue to sit as a judge over criminal matters
he partly adjudicated before his elevation. This legislative
solution-cum-decision was an intelligent step towards discouraging
waste of time and resources, which often arises when criminal cases
start anew.”

He reminded the House that in 2020, “the Supreme Court, in its
supreme wisdom, struck down section 396(7) of the ACJA as being
unconstitutional.

“The Honourable Court reasoned that a judicial officer cannot
simultaneously assume the role of a Justice of the Court Appeal and
still sit as a judge of the High Court, holding that such practice
was not within permissible constitutional boundary.

“The Court’s view is principally anchored on the fact that
section 386(7) is a statutory provision, which cannot override
constitutional provisions. The decision of the Court has thrown up
myriads of problems and has sailed us back to a harbour of delay in
criminal adjudication which we thought we had left.

“It is in this vein that this constitutional proposal is made to
give dispensation to a judge of a High Court who has been elevated
to the Court of Appeal to continue to sit as a judge in order to
conclude part-heard criminal matter given the advantages it gives
to our judicial system. Since this is a constitutional alteration,
the supreme fate, which befell section 396(7) of the Act,
occasioned by the Supreme Court, will not befall this
constitutional proposal when passed into law.”

He said further that the bill will amend the “principal Act to
allow a judge elevated to the Court of Appeal to continue hearing
criminal matter part-heard by him before his elevation, assist in
just and fair hearing and determination of corruption and money
laundry matters, expedite justice dispensation and eliminate delay
in justice delivery and save parties to criminal proceedings from
unnecessary and avoidable costs and pains.”

However, Rep. Abubakar Fulata said the bill should not allowed
to sail through because it will create conflict of interest,
wondering how a judge will decide a case at the High Court and go
ahead to sit on an appeal on the same case.

But Rep. Ibrahim Olarenwaju said there was no conflict of
interest on the issue of the bill, stressing that there has often
been complaints of delayed justice in the country saying “when
justice is delayed, it is equivalent to justice denied.

He said “in most cases, criminal cases takes up to two years and
probably there is only one witness left or the court is adjourning
for judgment and the Judge is elevated. In most cases, when a Judge
is appointed, he is posted to a different judicial division
different from where he was appointed. Even if he remain there, all
he can do is to excuse himself from such a case.

“There can never be any conflict. If we don’t allow this bill to
sail through, we will be killing exactly what we are trying to
build. People are shouting that our justice is too delayed and we
want to fast track our trial system.

“There have been moved to establish special courts for criminal
trials only. We have not been able to do. Now, we are trying to go
in between. Judges who have almost completed a trial can come back
and complete the trial even after their elevation, deliver
judgement and go.”

Rep. Abdulrazak Namdas said judges that has been elevated to
higher courts should be given a specific period of about three
months to conclude the cases they are handling before assuming
their new status.

Rep. Chinyere Igwe said the object of the bill was to pave the
way for quick dispensation of justice, adding that the parliament
can use the bill to overhaul the criminal justice delivery system
in the country.

Deputy Speaker, Ahmed Idris Wase said “I am supposed to be
neutral. But I am tempted to ask, how can one judge sit in two
places? Without time limit, there will definitely be conflict of
interest and the judge can decide to sit on this case for
eternity.

“As long as we are trying to cure the disease in that aspect, I
think we should cure it properly. For a judge to sit in two
different courts at the same time should be looked into
properly.”