Saturday, December 21, 2024
Custom Text
Home NEWS Judiciary Judiciary handicapped until ACJ Act 2015 was signed – Sagay

Judiciary handicapped until ACJ Act 2015 was signed – Sagay

-

Professor of law and Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-corruption, Itse Sagay, was chairman at a forum organised by the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC), Lagos State chapter. At the event, he spoke on issues that affect the judiciary in the administration of justice and the easing of the problems by the New Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Senior Correspondent ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA reports.

Until May 2015, the judiciary had taken the blame for delays in administration of criminal justice. It is just not the fault of the judiciary, but the application of old rule that stifled prosecution.
But the signing into law of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA 2015) brought great relief to the whole administration of criminal justice because it considerably reviewed the rule for defence counsel to indulge in frustrations and delays, thereby ridiculing the whole system.
This explanation was made recently by Professor Itse Sagay, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), while speaking in Lagos at the 2016 Annual Lecture and Award Ceremony organised by the National Association of Judiciary Correspondents (NAJUC), Lagos chapter.
TheNiche gathered that the ACJA 2015 responds to Nigeria’s dire need of a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to reflect the true intents of the Constitution and the demands of a democratic society, eliminate unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases and improve the efficiency of criminal justice administration in the country.
The purport of ACJA is to enhance accelerated proceedings and prosecution of corruption and related crimes. It introduces innovative provisions that will enhance the efficiency of the justice system, builds upon the existing framework of criminal justice administration in the country and fills the gaps observed in these laws over the course of several decades.
Main objectives of the Act are specifically to promote effective management of criminal justice institutions and speedy dispensation of justice, to protect the society from crime, and protect the rights and the interests of the defendant and the victim. They are captured in Section 1 of the Act.
It is deliberate shift from punishment to restorative justice which pays attention to the needs of the society, the victims, vulnerable persons and human dignity.
At the forum, with the theme ‘The Judiciary, Media, Anti-graft Agencies and the Fight against Corruption’, Sagay, while explaining the essence of ACJA, said: “Once a case commences, it must go on from day to day and of course, like any other law, there are exceptions that when it becomes necessary to have adjournment, then one could be granted, but would not be longer than two weeks and normally not more than five adjournments in one case.”
Citing another provision of the Act, Sagay said when the aggrieved party files appeal at the appeal court, and applies for stay of execution, the case would go on regardless of the appeal. The appeal proceedings would go on simultaneously with the high court proceedings.
Another very important provision of the Act is that it stops counsel from filing frivolous applications such as preliminary objections on jurisdiction, to cause delay or stall proceedings. In such cases, the court would be totally involved in the determination of, first, whether it has jurisdiction or not.
He cited cases in which matters that went to the Supreme Court were later referred back to the high court, thereby causing the matter to start de novo (afresh). An example is Joshua Dariye’s case which commenced since 2007.
“The Act states that if you bring a preliminary objection, the court would simply hear that objection and listen to the counter by the prosecution counsel, but gives no ruling. After that, it will go on with the main case. At the conclusion of the case, the court will give a ruling on the preliminary objection and give a ruling on the main case of corruption.
“Once that happens and if the aggrieved party wants to appeal, he appeals both for the preliminary objection and the main case, and for ever and ever, that case will never come to the high court again. That is the present position,” the learned gentleman stressed.
One other thing under the new Act, TheNiche gathered, is that, previously, when a judge was elevated to the appeal court and another judge appointed to replace him at the high court, the case will start de novo and if the matter had stayed for four years, that time would have been lost. But now, once a judge is promoted to the Court of Appeal, he is compelled to hear the cases he was handling at the high court in addition to the cases at the Court of Appeal. The judge must sit on the cases that are outstanding and nothing would be suspended. The previous practice had caused lot of problems for the administration of criminal justice.
Sagay absolved the judges and prosecution of blame for delays in court proceedings and instead blamed defective laws which serve as tools for the court to operate.
“It was entirely not the fault of judges neither was it the fault of prosecution to cause delays in administration of criminal justice. The law itself, which they would use as an implement, was defective. I do not say all judges are perfect; there are some bad eggs obviously. But overwhelmingly, I think we have a good judiciary
“This new tool, this new Act, I think, if you observe, there has been a dynamic and fast progress in the prosecution of cases,” he asserted.
TheNiche gathered that so many corrupt cases are going on at full speed and the judges are sitting, hearing and directing their causes effectively.
However, notwithstanding the new Act, some defence counsel have devised other strategies to prolong cases, especially corruption cases. Some of the new ploys include: using many hours for cross-examination, accusing a judge of bias in order to make him withdraw from hearing the case, and provoking the judge. Some counsel would withdraw from appearance, only for the new defence counsel to inform the court that he has just taken the brief and needs time to study and regularise the case file.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Must Read