By Chinyere Obia
![image](/2020/11/Lawpavilion00.png")
The Court of Appeal is unhappy. Its unhappiness stems from the
inability to dispense justice in several cases clogging its dockets
over the years. As a result, it has just set up seven special
panels to decongest the backlog of appeals in the court.
![image](/2020/10/NWLRland.jpg")
The president of the court, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, said
the special panels would sit in two sessions daily for three days
to dispose off over 100 motions. This has become necessary in
view of lingering appeals, which Justice Dongban-Mensem described
as the unwillingness of some litigants who go into deep slumber
without filing complete processes.
“The Court of Appeal cannot be used as a tool in the hands of
these litigants who go into a deep slumber. All notices of appeal
filed without being followed with other processes to ensure quick
prosecution and disposal of the appeal should be shown the way out.
We have sufficient provisions in our rules, which are backed by
Constitutional provision for the disposal of matters in court,” she
said.
The court of appeal is not alone in this ordeal. All levels of
courts ranging from the magistracy to the Supreme Court face
similar challenges for both civil and criminal matters. However,
the most worrisome is the high courts, where majority of the trials
emanate. Trials linger endlessly at the court of first instance
before judgment is obtained. In some cases, disputed decisions on
interlocutory applications migrate up to the apex court, while the
substantial matter is pending at the lower courts.
Ironically, the mischief, which the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 intended to cure by ensuring that cases
are dispensed faster is now endangered. Earlier this year, the
Supreme Court in the case of Udeogu Jones Vs the Federal Republic
of Nigeria (FRN) and others, voided section 396(7) of the Act and
described it as unconstitutional. Section 396(7) of the ACJA, was
enacted to ensure trials are not restarted when judges are
elevated. It empowers judges elevated to an appellate court to
conclude any matter being heard by them as of the time of the
elevation. The implication of this decision by the apex court is
the retrial for instance, of previously convicted defendants in the
corruption case of former governor of Abia State, Senator Orji Uzor
Kalu, his firms and Udeogu Jones were ordered, after over five
years of prosecution.
Worried by this development, President Muhammadu Buhari, during
the first virtual general conference of the Nigerian Bar
Association (NBA) held in August canvassed a time frame within
which to dispose of all criminal matters as obtainable in election
petition cases.
The president said: “I believe we need to step forward and
resolve some of the emerging problems of our system of
administration of justice. Reform is urgent because the fabric of
our society is stitched together by our system of justice and law
enforcement.
“We cannot afford to have the stitches come undone. The first
issue I would like to commend to your consideration is the terribly
slow pace of trial in our courts. I’m not a lawyer, but I have been
a beneficiary of the judicial process.”
The president, who spoke through his vice, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo
(SAN) lamented the times he spent at the election tribunals, trying
to challenge the electoral victory of his opponents. He expressed
happiness that the law has changed to limit the time frame for
electoral matters to eight months.
He wondered why time limit is not applied to other cases as it
is done in election petitions. “Why can’t we put in place rules
that would say that a criminal matter all the way to the Supreme
Court must not exceed 12 months in duration? Why can’t we do the
same for civil cases? Even if we say that civil cases must not go
beyond between 12 and 15 months, I think that for me would be
stepping forward,” he declared in reference to the theme of the
conference, which was “step forward.”
According to him, in the context of a competitive global
economy, the speed of legal processes must match up with the global
pace of transactions. Inability to match up, he noted, has a
negative implication to the country’s efforts to promote the ease
of doing business and position Nigeria as the favoured investment
destination.
In Federal High Court, Lagos, so many criminal cases have
continued to suffer setbacks for various reasons. The most bizarre
are charges, where the accused are yet to surface in court to take
their plea one year after. A case in point is that of the FRN Vs
Kenneth Ndubuisi Amadi and IDID Nigeria Limited. Slammed with 5
counts bordering on N2.9 billion alleged fraud, forgery,
suppression of data and conversion without authority in October 2,
2019, the defendants are yet to come to court to take their plea.
And there has not been any consequence for this, not even an
effective bench warrant against the defendants, who are obviously
evading arraignment.
Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Kenneth Ndubuisi
Amadi, male, Adult of No 31A, Providence
Street, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos and IDID Nigeria Limited of No. 26
Osisiogu Crescent, Utako, Abuja sometime in 2016 at Lagos, within
the jurisdiction of this honourable court did obtain by false
pretence and with intent to defraud, the sum of Two Billion, Nine
Hundred Million Naira (2,9000,000,000) belonging to EUNISELL LTD
from A-Z Petroleum LTD and AMMASCO International Limited and you
hereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the
Advanced Free Fraud and other fraud related offences Act, Cap.A6,
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under
section 1(3) of the same Act.”
Such unresolved criminal matters make complainants and in fact,
the general publics lose faith in the system. Little wonder why
many prefer to go the wrong way, which is self-help. And cases of
this nature abound in our judicial system. While some are scorning
the courts by avoiding summons as far as they can without
consequences, others who present themselves for trial seem to
embark on endless venture. Some times, the defendants
and their lawyers employ delay tactics, some other time, the
defence is not just ready or the court is bugged with other issues
such as transfers, retirements or elevation of a judge that slow
down the pace of proceedings and make it linger for years.
In FRN Vs Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi & others, trial started
before Justice Ibrahim Buba who was sitting in Lagos in March 2016,
but the judge was transferred from Lagos to Enugu state in
2018. Justice Ayokunle Faji took over the case, which is
still ongoing till date. The Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) charged Akpobokemi, a former Nigerian Maritime
Administration Safety Agency (NIMASA) boss and others to
court on allegations of N22.7 billion fraud. The defendants
were accused of converting over N22.7 billion stolen from NIMASA to
their personal use between December 12, 2014 and April 10,
2015.
Trial in FRN Vs Baba Jauro & others started in 2016 and
concluded before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun sitting in Lagos. But
at the stage to adopt the final written addresses after prosecution
have called 16 witnesses and defence called five, the trial judge
proceeded on retirement in November 2019. As a result, fresh
arraignment took place before Justice Chuka Obiozor on November 10,
2020 after four years of fruitless trial before Justice Olatoregun.
Jauro was also a former NIMASA boss who succeeded Akpolokemi
on interim basis. He was charged by EFCC too.
The story is the same in the matter between the FRN and Air Vice
Marshal Adesola Amosun & others. The trial started in 2016
before Justice Mohammed Idris who was elevated to the court of
Appeal in 2018. Consequently, the trial started afresh before
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke till date. Amosun, a former chief of Air
Staff was charged to court by EFCC. He and his co-accused are
facing trial for alleged diversion of N21.4billion budgeted for
security operations.
Also, the matter between FRN and Femi Fani Kayode, Nenadi Usman
& others, which started in 2017, is still unresolved. The trial
started before Justice Muslim Hassan in 2017 but later reassigned
to Justice Rilwan Aikawa, following objections raised by
Fani-Kayode to the effect that Justice Hassan had once been a staff
of EFCC as the Head of legal unit, who signed the charge, which the
agency preferred against him when he was tried before Justice Rita
Ofili-Ajumogobia. The trial is still ongoing.
Another interesting case, which has lingered is that of the
former speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Adeyemi
Ikuforiji.
Alongside one of his aides, the former speaker’s trial started
in 2012 before Justice Ibrahim Buba sitting in Lagos. The judge
later discharged the defendants in 2014, following their “no case
submission” application after the prosecution had closed its case.
Dissatisfied with the development, the EFCC appealed against
Justice Buba’s ruling up to the Supreme Court and the apex court
reversed the ruling in November 2018 and directed that the case be
taken to another judge at the high court. Consequently, the trial
started afresh before Justice Mohammed Liman in 2020 and is still
on.
Unless a drastic and comprehensive reform of the system is
urgently done, Nigeria’s criminal justice system would continue to
drag, no matter how hard the jurists try to clear their
dockets.
Suggesting ways of improving speed of criminal trials without
compromising the principles of fair hearing, Professor of law and
former dean, faculty of law, Abia State University (ABSU), Uturu,
Sampson Erugo said several challenges must be tackled before
desired improvement can be achieved.
“These challenges abound in all the criminal justice
institutions – the Police and other security agencies, the Courts
(including lawyers) and the Correctional Services. In the case of
Police, an unbiased critical assessment will reveal that the Police
are under-funded, lack vital tools, starved of funds for
investigation and prosecution of cases, and generally handicapped
in attending to prosecute cases. These challenges are in addition
to clear issues of corruption, incompetence, and other unethical
conducts on the part of some officers and men.
“Without the active, quick, and competent participation or
cooperation of the Police and other security agencies involved,
criminal cases cannot be prosecuted as desired. Of course, these
factors will need to be addressed to improve the speed and conduct
of criminal trials,” he said.
Regarding the courts, Prof Erugo stated that besides the
unacceptable infrastructural deficit, there are also issues of
incompetent, bad, lazy, and unethical Judges and Magistrates.
Particularly worrisome and probably the most critical challenge, he
noted, has to do with ethics and values.
According to him, there are many dimensions to the issue of
ethical competence of both lawyers and Judges involved in criminal
trials. “Most lawyers unethically feel the easiest way to defend a
client who is seriously implicated as a defendant in a criminal
trial is to use every tactic to delay the trial. This is unethical,
and the Judge should be able to control his/her court to ensure
there is no undue delay.
“But the Judge/Magistrate must be competent, transparent,
ethically conscious, and knowledgeable to be in control. The Bar
should be ready to check the unethical and unprofessional conduct
of members in criminal trials; just like the court should be ready
to report such unethical conducts to the Bar. A lawyer’s delay
tactics in criminal trials offend several Rules of Professional
Conduct, and of course, conflict lawyer’s role to society
generally. It could equally hurt the lawyer directly or indirectly
as a member of society,” he suggested.
The don said the Correctional Service is also implicated in
causing delays in criminal trials, particularly in producing
remanded prisoners to court. According to him, the challenge
borders on lack of operational vehicles and funds. Adequate
provision, he said, is required to make the Service efficient and
responsive.
His words: “Generally, in addition to the solutions proffered
under the preceding paragraphs, my humble suggestion is that the
listed institutions should work in synergy or collaborate to make
Rules that will ensure that criminal trials must be concluded
within a specific time line after arraignment. Periodic reports of
monitoring should be published to show which institutions are
frustrating the arraignments.”
The Convener, Access to Justice (A2J), Mr. Joseph Otteh recalled
that there have been efforts to improve criminal trials by Federal
and State governments through the passage of Administration of
Criminal Justice legislations across the Country, and the list of
States that have so far passed such laws is extensive- nearly all
of them.
“Have the legislations produced the targeted results and
improved the delivery of criminal justice?” He asked. Under past
criminal procedure laws, he noted, due process rights were
significantly crushed under the weight of dysfunctional procedures,
such as the holding charge system.
“But the current system of remand has considerably ameliorated
that situation by giving courts more active roles in supervising
administrative or pre-trial detention. Also, the new legislations
have broadened the powers of the court to prevent abuses of the
trial system and improve the efficiency of the trial process.
“However, many important goals are yet unachieved. Criminal
trials still take too long to complete, and this has not helped
foster a sense of justice and accountability for many serious
offences, particularly corruption-related crimes. Therefore, at
least in this respect, reforms made to improve the timeliness of
criminal adjudication are still (largely) drawing a blank. In a
COVID-19 pandemic era, the situation worsened, given that many
criminal trials had to be suspended, making it even harder to
achieve the goals of speedy disposition of cases. These are
important lessons in the learning curve,” he said.
Otteh stated that some of the states that passed early criminal
justice reform legislations are beginning to review those
legislations, to improve justice delivery. “Hopefully the new
legislations will be shaped by the exigencies of creating better
system versatility, enabling them to respond to a range of both
foreseeable and not-so-predictable circumstances, and, for this
purpose, finding better technology solutions for many of the
system’s processes and problems.
“Further reform of criminal trial legislation must do better at
eliminating the margin of obnoxious and abusive prosecutions
clogging criminal court dockets, and ensuring that only people who
have genuine cases to answer are taken through the rigours of
trial. This will significantly reduce the size of criminal dockets
and enable criminal courts to focus better on adjudicating bona
fide accusations. Reforms must explore the forms by which
alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice can be
enhanced, in ways that bring better credibility to the justice
system, while preserving the system’s core values and philosophy,”
he submitted.
For Dr. Jerome Okoro, elaborate investigation is the foundation
of diligent, expedited and fruitful criminal prosecution. When a
suspect is arraigned with poor quality of evidence, he noted, the
prosecution would often make desperate moves in the course of the
trial to rebuild the case and improve the evidence. According to
him, greater costs and attention should be committed to
investigation by adequate provision of essential modern
investigation equipment to the law enforcement agencies, and
building expertise in areas like fingerprint, tracking and
forensics through internal training and external procurement.
His words: “It is more ideal that investigation is lengthened
for prosecution to be shortened. Then re-orientation of lawyers
against delay tactics is a crusade that the NBA and other lawyers’
bodies should embark on or intensify. Trivial objections, and
interlocutory applications and appeals constitute a huge clog in
the wheel of speedy trial. Such, except if fundamental like those
bordering on court’s jurisdiction, should be relentlessly
discouraged by statutory provisions and judicial
pronouncements.”
Describing specialization of courts as the most strategic of
interventions, Dr. Okoro argued that if within a division of a
court, like Federal High Court, Lagos, there is a specific
sub-division saddled exclusively with criminal matters, there would
be much difference.
Written By Chinyere Obi
By Chinyere Obia
The Court of Appeal is unhappy. Its unhappiness stems from the
inability to dispense justice in several cases clogging its dockets
over the years. As a result, it has just set up seven special
panels to decongest the backlog of appeals in the court.
The president of the court, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, said
the special panels would sit in two sessions daily for three days
to dispose off over 100 motions. This has become necessary in
view of lingering appeals, which Justice Dongban-Mensem described
as the unwillingness of some litigants who go into deep slumber
without filing complete processes.
“The Court of Appeal cannot be used as a tool in the hands of
these litigants who go into a deep slumber. All notices of appeal
filed without being followed with other processes to ensure quick
prosecution and disposal of the appeal should be shown the way out.
We have sufficient provisions in our rules, which are backed by
Constitutional provision for the disposal of matters in court,” she
said.
The court of appeal is not alone in this ordeal. All levels of
courts ranging from the magistracy to the Supreme Court face
similar challenges for both civil and criminal matters. However,
the most worrisome is the high courts, where majority of the trials
emanate. Trials linger endlessly at the court of first instance
before judgment is obtained. In some cases, disputed decisions on
interlocutory applications migrate up to the apex court, while the
substantial matter is pending at the lower courts.
Ironically, the mischief, which the Administration of Criminal
Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 intended to cure by ensuring that cases
are dispensed faster is now endangered. Earlier this year, the
Supreme Court in the case of Udeogu Jones Vs the Federal Republic
of Nigeria (FRN) and others, voided section 396(7) of the Act and
described it as unconstitutional. Section 396(7) of the ACJA, was
enacted to ensure trials are not restarted when judges are
elevated. It empowers judges elevated to an appellate court to
conclude any matter being heard by them as of the time of the
elevation. The implication of this decision by the apex court is
the retrial for instance, of previously convicted defendants in the
corruption case of former governor of Abia State, Senator Orji Uzor
Kalu, his firms and Udeogu Jones were ordered, after over five
years of prosecution.
Worried by this development, President Muhammadu Buhari, during
the first virtual general conference of the Nigerian Bar
Association (NBA) held in August canvassed a time frame within
which to dispose of all criminal matters as obtainable in election
petition cases.
The president said: “I believe we need to step forward and
resolve some of the emerging problems of our system of
administration of justice. Reform is urgent because the fabric of
our society is stitched together by our system of justice and law
enforcement.
“We cannot afford to have the stitches come undone. The first
issue I would like to commend to your consideration is the terribly
slow pace of trial in our courts. I’m not a lawyer, but I have been
a beneficiary of the judicial process.”
The president, who spoke through his vice, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo
(SAN) lamented the times he spent at the election tribunals, trying
to challenge the electoral victory of his opponents. He expressed
happiness that the law has changed to limit the time frame for
electoral matters to eight months.
He wondered why time limit is not applied to other cases as it
is done in election petitions. “Why can’t we put in place rules
that would say that a criminal matter all the way to the Supreme
Court must not exceed 12 months in duration? Why can’t we do the
same for civil cases? Even if we say that civil cases must not go
beyond between 12 and 15 months, I think that for me would be
stepping forward,” he declared in reference to the theme of the
conference, which was “step forward.”
According to him, in the context of a competitive global
economy, the speed of legal processes must match up with the global
pace of transactions. Inability to match up, he noted, has a
negative implication to the country’s efforts to promote the ease
of doing business and position Nigeria as the favoured investment
destination.
In Federal High Court, Lagos, so many criminal cases have
continued to suffer setbacks for various reasons. The most bizarre
are charges, where the accused are yet to surface in court to take
their plea one year after. A case in point is that of the FRN Vs
Kenneth Ndubuisi Amadi and IDID Nigeria Limited. Slammed with 5
counts bordering on N2.9 billion alleged fraud, forgery,
suppression of data and conversion without authority in October 2,
2019, the defendants are yet to come to court to take their plea.
And there has not been any consequence for this, not even an
effective bench warrant against the defendants, who are obviously
evading arraignment.
Count one of the charge reads: “That you, Kenneth Ndubuisi
Amadi, male, Adult of No 31A, Providence
Street, Lekki Phase 1, Lagos and IDID Nigeria Limited of No. 26
Osisiogu Crescent, Utako, Abuja sometime in 2016 at Lagos, within
the jurisdiction of this honourable court did obtain by false
pretence and with intent to defraud, the sum of Two Billion, Nine
Hundred Million Naira (2,9000,000,000) belonging to EUNISELL LTD
from A-Z Petroleum LTD and AMMASCO International Limited and you
hereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the
Advanced Free Fraud and other fraud related offences Act, Cap.A6,
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under
section 1(3) of the same Act.”
Such unresolved criminal matters make complainants and in fact,
the general publics lose faith in the system. Little wonder why
many prefer to go the wrong way, which is self-help. And cases of
this nature abound in our judicial system. While some are scorning
the courts by avoiding summons as far as they can without
consequences, others who present themselves for trial seem to
embark on endless venture. Some times, the defendants
and their lawyers employ delay tactics, some other time, the
defence is not just ready or the court is bugged with other issues
such as transfers, retirements or elevation of a judge that slow
down the pace of proceedings and make it linger for years.
In FRN Vs Patrick Ziadeke Akpobolokemi & others, trial started
before Justice Ibrahim Buba who was sitting in Lagos in March 2016,
but the judge was transferred from Lagos to Enugu state in
2018. Justice Ayokunle Faji took over the case, which is
still ongoing till date. The Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) charged Akpobokemi, a former Nigerian Maritime
Administration Safety Agency (NIMASA) boss and others to
court on allegations of N22.7 billion fraud. The defendants
were accused of converting over N22.7 billion stolen from NIMASA to
their personal use between December 12, 2014 and April 10,
2015.
Trial in FRN Vs Baba Jauro & others started in 2016 and
concluded before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun sitting in Lagos. But
at the stage to adopt the final written addresses after prosecution
have called 16 witnesses and defence called five, the trial judge
proceeded on retirement in November 2019. As a result, fresh
arraignment took place before Justice Chuka Obiozor on November 10,
2020 after four years of fruitless trial before Justice Olatoregun.
Jauro was also a former NIMASA boss who succeeded Akpolokemi
on interim basis. He was charged by EFCC too.
The story is the same in the matter between the FRN and Air Vice
Marshal Adesola Amosun & others. The trial started in 2016
before Justice Mohammed Idris who was elevated to the court of
Appeal in 2018. Consequently, the trial started afresh before
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke till date. Amosun, a former chief of Air
Staff was charged to court by EFCC. He and his co-accused are
facing trial for alleged diversion of N21.4billion budgeted for
security operations.
Also, the matter between FRN and Femi Fani Kayode, Nenadi Usman
& others, which started in 2017, is still unresolved. The trial
started before Justice Muslim Hassan in 2017 but later reassigned
to Justice Rilwan Aikawa, following objections raised by
Fani-Kayode to the effect that Justice Hassan had once been a staff
of EFCC as the Head of legal unit, who signed the charge, which the
agency preferred against him when he was tried before Justice Rita
Ofili-Ajumogobia. The trial is still ongoing.
Another interesting case, which has lingered is that of the
former speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Adeyemi
Ikuforiji.
Alongside one of his aides, the former speaker’s trial started
in 2012 before Justice Ibrahim Buba sitting in Lagos. The judge
later discharged the defendants in 2014, following their “no case
submission” application after the prosecution had closed its case.
Dissatisfied with the development, the EFCC appealed against
Justice Buba’s ruling up to the Supreme Court and the apex court
reversed the ruling in November 2018 and directed that the case be
taken to another judge at the high court. Consequently, the trial
started afresh before Justice Mohammed Liman in 2020 and is still
on.
Unless a drastic and comprehensive reform of the system is
urgently done, Nigeria’s criminal justice system would continue to
drag, no matter how hard the jurists try to clear their
dockets.
Suggesting ways of improving speed of criminal trials without
compromising the principles of fair hearing, Professor of law and
former dean, faculty of law, Abia State University (ABSU), Uturu,
Sampson Erugo said several challenges must be tackled before
desired improvement can be achieved.
“These challenges abound in all the criminal justice
institutions – the Police and other security agencies, the Courts
(including lawyers) and the Correctional Services. In the case of
Police, an unbiased critical assessment will reveal that the Police
are under-funded, lack vital tools, starved of funds for
investigation and prosecution of cases, and generally handicapped
in attending to prosecute cases. These challenges are in addition
to clear issues of corruption, incompetence, and other unethical
conducts on the part of some officers and men.
“Without the active, quick, and competent participation or
cooperation of the Police and other security agencies involved,
criminal cases cannot be prosecuted as desired. Of course, these
factors will need to be addressed to improve the speed and conduct
of criminal trials,” he said.
Regarding the courts, Prof Erugo stated that besides the
unacceptable infrastructural deficit, there are also issues of
incompetent, bad, lazy, and unethical Judges and Magistrates.
Particularly worrisome and probably the most critical challenge, he
noted, has to do with ethics and values.
According to him, there are many dimensions to the issue of
ethical competence of both lawyers and Judges involved in criminal
trials. “Most lawyers unethically feel the easiest way to defend a
client who is seriously implicated as a defendant in a criminal
trial is to use every tactic to delay the trial. This is unethical,
and the Judge should be able to control his/her court to ensure
there is no undue delay.
“But the Judge/Magistrate must be competent, transparent,
ethically conscious, and knowledgeable to be in control. The Bar
should be ready to check the unethical and unprofessional conduct
of members in criminal trials; just like the court should be ready
to report such unethical conducts to the Bar. A lawyer’s delay
tactics in criminal trials offend several Rules of Professional
Conduct, and of course, conflict lawyer’s role to society
generally. It could equally hurt the lawyer directly or indirectly
as a member of society,” he suggested.
The don said the Correctional Service is also implicated in
causing delays in criminal trials, particularly in producing
remanded prisoners to court. According to him, the challenge
borders on lack of operational vehicles and funds. Adequate
provision, he said, is required to make the Service efficient and
responsive.
His words: “Generally, in addition to the solutions proffered
under the preceding paragraphs, my humble suggestion is that the
listed institutions should work in synergy or collaborate to make
Rules that will ensure that criminal trials must be concluded
within a specific time line after arraignment. Periodic reports of
monitoring should be published to show which institutions are
frustrating the arraignments.”
The Convener, Access to Justice (A2J), Mr. Joseph Otteh recalled
that there have been efforts to improve criminal trials by Federal
and State governments through the passage of Administration of
Criminal Justice legislations across the Country, and the list of
States that have so far passed such laws is extensive- nearly all
of them.
“Have the legislations produced the targeted results and
improved the delivery of criminal justice?” He asked. Under past
criminal procedure laws, he noted, due process rights were
significantly crushed under the weight of dysfunctional procedures,
such as the holding charge system.
“But the current system of remand has considerably ameliorated
that situation by giving courts more active roles in supervising
administrative or pre-trial detention. Also, the new legislations
have broadened the powers of the court to prevent abuses of the
trial system and improve the efficiency of the trial process.
“However, many important goals are yet unachieved. Criminal
trials still take too long to complete, and this has not helped
foster a sense of justice and accountability for many serious
offences, particularly corruption-related crimes. Therefore, at
least in this respect, reforms made to improve the timeliness of
criminal adjudication are still (largely) drawing a blank. In a
COVID-19 pandemic era, the situation worsened, given that many
criminal trials had to be suspended, making it even harder to
achieve the goals of speedy disposition of cases. These are
important lessons in the learning curve,” he said.
Otteh stated that some of the states that passed early criminal
justice reform legislations are beginning to review those
legislations, to improve justice delivery. “Hopefully the new
legislations will be shaped by the exigencies of creating better
system versatility, enabling them to respond to a range of both
foreseeable and not-so-predictable circumstances, and, for this
purpose, finding better technology solutions for many of the
system’s processes and problems.
“Further reform of criminal trial legislation must do better at
eliminating the margin of obnoxious and abusive prosecutions
clogging criminal court dockets, and ensuring that only people who
have genuine cases to answer are taken through the rigours of
trial. This will significantly reduce the size of criminal dockets
and enable criminal courts to focus better on adjudicating bona
fide accusations. Reforms must explore the forms by which
alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice can be
enhanced, in ways that bring better credibility to the justice
system, while preserving the system’s core values and philosophy,”
he submitted.
For Dr. Jerome Okoro, elaborate investigation is the foundation
of diligent, expedited and fruitful criminal prosecution. When a
suspect is arraigned with poor quality of evidence, he noted, the
prosecution would often make desperate moves in the course of the
trial to rebuild the case and improve the evidence. According to
him, greater costs and attention should be committed to
investigation by adequate provision of essential modern
investigation equipment to the law enforcement agencies, and
building expertise in areas like fingerprint, tracking and
forensics through internal training and external procurement.
His words: “It is more ideal that investigation is lengthened
for prosecution to be shortened. Then re-orientation of lawyers
against delay tactics is a crusade that the NBA and other lawyers’
bodies should embark on or intensify. Trivial objections, and
interlocutory applications and appeals constitute a huge clog in
the wheel of speedy trial. Such, except if fundamental like those
bordering on court’s jurisdiction, should be relentlessly
discouraged by statutory provisions and judicial
pronouncements.”
Describing specialization of courts as the most strategic of
interventions, Dr. Okoro argued that if within a division of a
court, like Federal High Court, Lagos, there is a specific
sub-division saddled exclusively with criminal matters, there would
be much difference.
Written By Chinyere Obi