 |
| Court of Appeal, Abuja |
The new Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mohammed Idris, has challenged stakeholders in the justice sector to give the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 a chance to succeed by changing their negative attitudes towards the law.
The judge, who described the ACJA as a revolutionary law, noted that it was passed in response to the outcry against delayed justice in the country.
Justice Idris, who lauded the ACJA, said the judiciary had since heeded the revolutionary call of the law, while the ball was now in the court of other stakeholders to let the law work.
The judge gave the admonition on Tuesday while delivering a ruling in the case of the senator representing Delta North in the National Assembly, Peter Nwaoboshi, who was charged with an alleged fraud of N322m.
Nwaoboshi and two companies were arraigned on April 25, 2018 before the Federal High Court in Lagos by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
They were arraigned before Justice Idris but the judge was elevated to the Court of Appeal in June.
Not wanting the case to be transferred to another judge to start afresh, the defence counsel – Mrs Valerie Azinge (SAN), Mr C.A. Nmakwe and Mr I.O. Aniakor – wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, requesting that Justice Idris be given a fiat to return to the Federal High Court to conclude the case.
The defence counsel made the request pursuant to Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which permits a judge elevated to the Court of Appeal to return to the high court to conclude partly-heard criminal cases.
But the EFCC kicked against the move, arguing that Nwaoboshi’s case did not qualify as a partly-heard case.
The prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, Mr M.S. Abubakar, argued that while Section 494(1) of the ACJA defined a partly-heard criminal case as one in which the prosecution has called all its witnesses and closed its case, in Nwaoboshi’s case the EFCC had only called two out of its six proposed witnesses.
“Section 396(7) is grossly unconstitutional. My Lord has ceased to be a judge of the Federal High Court, that fiat is unconstitutional.
“Counsel cannot, by consent, confer jurisdiction on the court where the court has none,” the EFCC lawyer contended.
But Nwaoboshi’s lawyer, Azinge, said she found it surprising that the EFCC, which had always accused the defence of employing dilatory tactics to frustrate cases, was kicking against expeditious hearing of the senator’s case.
She reminded the judge that Section 396(7) was introduced to cure a defect in the country’s administration of criminal justice system,
Azinge said, “In this case, a fiat has been issued and My Lord has come down from the Court of Appeal; this is the first time this is happening in the history of this country.
“Arising from the clamour for expeditious trial of criminal cases by both the Bar and the bench, the legislature passed the ACJA; the legislators bought into our cry. Lawyers should not throw this away. In fact, I believe that this law should be exported to the rest of Africa.”
She urged Justice Idris to go on with the case.
Ruling on the EFCC’s objection on Tuesday, Justice Idris admitted that by the provisions of Section 494(1) of the ACJA, Nwaoboshi’s case did not qualify as a partly-heard case.
The judge, however, said the fiat given by the President of the Court of Appeal for him to hear the case was still valid but could only be used if both parties agree.
He went on to challenge stakeholders in the justice sector to give the ACJA a chance to fulfill its purpose of eradicating delay in the criminal justice administration in the country.
The judge ruled, “Lest we forget, it is important at this stage of this ruling to remind ourselves that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act was enacted because the criminal justice system in this country was in a state of decline. The need arose for a revolutionary intervention in the system that ostensibly will impact on the quality of justice and avoid delays in the adjudicatory process. The ACJA was, therefore, a response to the dire need for a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to meet the demands of the constitutionally democratic society for the elimination of unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases, in particular, and to improve the efficiency of the administration of criminal justice generally.
“Clearly, the ACJA is intended, amongst other objectives, to address the issue of delays which is characteristic of our criminal justice delivery in this country. If the ACJA is to achieve its full potential, the citizenry must do away with negative attitude towards reforms. All the stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice must be determined and committed to the process of getting change. The political will by those in government is critical and fundamental to the full and successful implementation of the ACJA.
“The call for revolution has been made; the call for change has been made; the call for reforms in the administration of criminal justice system has been sounded and the judiciary has answered it; the ball is no longer in its court. It was Malcolm X, who once said, and with whom I agree totally, as follows: ‘I’m for truth, no matter who tells it; I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against; I am a human being, first and foremost, and, as such, I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity’.
“We must walk the walk and not just talk the talk because in the end it is not the talk but the walk that counts.”
The judge, who described the ACJA as a revolutionary law, noted that it was passed in response to the outcry against delayed justice in the country.
Justice Idris, who lauded the ACJA, said the judiciary had since heeded the revolutionary call of the law, while the ball was now in the court of other stakeholders to let the law work.
The judge gave the admonition on Tuesday while delivering a ruling in the case of the senator representing Delta North in the National Assembly, Peter Nwaoboshi, who was charged with an alleged fraud of N322m.
Nwaoboshi and two companies were arraigned on April 25, 2018 before the Federal High Court in Lagos by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
They were arraigned before Justice Idris but the judge was elevated to the Court of Appeal in June.
Not wanting the case to be transferred to another judge to start afresh, the defence counsel – Mrs Valerie Azinge (SAN), Mr C.A. Nmakwe and Mr I.O. Aniakor – wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, requesting that Justice Idris be given a fiat to return to the Federal High Court to conclude the case.
The defence counsel made the request pursuant to Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which permits a judge elevated to the Court of Appeal to return to the high court to conclude partly-heard criminal cases.
But the EFCC kicked against the move, arguing that Nwaoboshi’s case did not qualify as a partly-heard case.
The prosecuting counsel for the EFCC, Mr M.S. Abubakar, argued that while Section 494(1) of the ACJA defined a partly-heard criminal case as one in which the prosecution has called all its witnesses and closed its case, in Nwaoboshi’s case the EFCC had only called two out of its six proposed witnesses.
“Section 396(7) is grossly unconstitutional. My Lord has ceased to be a judge of the Federal High Court, that fiat is unconstitutional.
“Counsel cannot, by consent, confer jurisdiction on the court where the court has none,” the EFCC lawyer contended.
But Nwaoboshi’s lawyer, Azinge, said she found it surprising that the EFCC, which had always accused the defence of employing dilatory tactics to frustrate cases, was kicking against expeditious hearing of the senator’s case.
She reminded the judge that Section 396(7) was introduced to cure a defect in the country’s administration of criminal justice system,
Azinge said, “In this case, a fiat has been issued and My Lord has come down from the Court of Appeal; this is the first time this is happening in the history of this country.
“Arising from the clamour for expeditious trial of criminal cases by both the Bar and the bench, the legislature passed the ACJA; the legislators bought into our cry. Lawyers should not throw this away. In fact, I believe that this law should be exported to the rest of Africa.”
She urged Justice Idris to go on with the case.
Ruling on the EFCC’s objection on Tuesday, Justice Idris admitted that by the provisions of Section 494(1) of the ACJA, Nwaoboshi’s case did not qualify as a partly-heard case.
The judge, however, said the fiat given by the President of the Court of Appeal for him to hear the case was still valid but could only be used if both parties agree.
He went on to challenge stakeholders in the justice sector to give the ACJA a chance to fulfill its purpose of eradicating delay in the criminal justice administration in the country.
The judge ruled, “Lest we forget, it is important at this stage of this ruling to remind ourselves that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act was enacted because the criminal justice system in this country was in a state of decline. The need arose for a revolutionary intervention in the system that ostensibly will impact on the quality of justice and avoid delays in the adjudicatory process. The ACJA was, therefore, a response to the dire need for a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to meet the demands of the constitutionally democratic society for the elimination of unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases, in particular, and to improve the efficiency of the administration of criminal justice generally.
“Clearly, the ACJA is intended, amongst other objectives, to address the issue of delays which is characteristic of our criminal justice delivery in this country. If the ACJA is to achieve its full potential, the citizenry must do away with negative attitude towards reforms. All the stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice must be determined and committed to the process of getting change. The political will by those in government is critical and fundamental to the full and successful implementation of the ACJA.
“The call for revolution has been made; the call for change has been made; the call for reforms in the administration of criminal justice system has been sounded and the judiciary has answered it; the ball is no longer in its court. It was Malcolm X, who once said, and with whom I agree totally, as follows: ‘I’m for truth, no matter who tells it; I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against; I am a human being, first and foremost, and, as such, I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity’.
“We must walk the walk and not just talk the talk because in the end it is not the talk but the walk that counts.”
In this article: