With the recent signing into law of the Administration of Criminal Justice (ACJ) Act, 2015, legal luminaries gather in Abuja last week to unearth the pitfalls and other landmines that may be lurking in what they described as “somewhat complex legislation”, so as to ensure that the inherent defects are corrected before lawyers and litigants begin to explore them for selfish ends. AMEH EJEKWONYILO reports
Undoubtedly, the major bane of running an effective and efficient justice system in Nigeria has been the insincerity of major stakeholders, (particularly members of the Bar and Bench) to patriotically explore the numerous provisions of the law to serve the cause of justice. Rather, they (lawyers) resort to exploring the latent defects in the laws to make a mess of the judiciary in its mandate of promoting justice and equity in the society.
That was the crux of the first roundtable on the newly enacted act by the Rule of Law Development Foundation; a non-governmental organisation that is committed to fostering rule of law in the country, last Wednesday.
The first to fire the salvo at the event was the former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President and Coordinator of the foundation, Joseph Daudu (SAN). He said the controversy within the legislation began at the very outset, that is, Section 2-(1) of the Act, which provides thus: “Without prejudice to section 86 of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall apply to criminal trials for the offences established by an Act of the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory.”
He further said Section 86 of the Act which provides thus: “The provisions of this part and part 9-30 of this Act shall apply to all criminal trials and proceedings unless express provision is made in respect of any particular court or form of trial or proceeding.”
The erstwhile NBA boss noted that the poser with the above provisions of the Act was the extent of the application of the Act. “Is it limited to the trial of criminal cases in the courts of the FCT alone or does it extend to all Federal Courts within the FCT trying all criminal offences or does it extend as the schedule suggests to all federal courts nationwide trying federal offences?, Daudu queried.
He argued that this “conundrum presents a complex issue of ascertaining jurisdiction of courts under the Act.
Blueprint recalls that the ACJ Bill was passed into law, that is, by passage through the House of Representatives and the Senate on April 22 and 23, 2015 respectively. It was assented to by the then President Goodluck Jonathan on May 13, 2015.
This legislation consists of 48 parts and 495 sections. It is meant to be comprehensive in all aspects of penal procedural legislation.
Speaking on the merits or otherwise of the Act, the Rule of Law Development Foundation Coordinator said: “This legislation must be put through the crucibles or furnace of constant application before its merits and otherwise can become apparent.”
He further opined that for Nigerians to secure any real benefit for the legislation, the criminal justice institutions in the country must purge themselves of unethical practices.
“Certainly a corrupt and incompetent judiciary will make mincemeat of this legislation to the advantage and eternal joy of criminals whose activities are meant to be curbed by concerted implementation of the provisions of the Act.”
Daudu charged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to keep a close eye on the implementation of the Act.
“Where the conduct of a judge in the implementation of this Act is below average, such a judge is either incompetent or corrupt and must be shown the way out.
“There is so much impunity in the system with some criminal division judges not living up to the expectation of the society.”
While commending the Anambra and Lagos states’ government for domesticating the Act, he warned that the inability of stakeholders to fully implement the legislation and domesticate it in the remaining 34 states in the country would spell “doom to our quest to have an egalitarian and peaceful society.”
Earlier, chairman of the occasion, Abubakar Mahmud (SAN) noted that there was a need to disaggregate the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the police and the Economic and Financial Commission (EFCC).
“The EFCC should be an investigative, not a prosecutorial agency. You must disaggregate police investigative and prosecutorial powers.
“One of them could be compromised or even both.
He pointed out that the administration of criminal justice system involves huge investment.
“Both the police, investigative agencies, prisons and the courts must be adequately funded. These agencies have limited resources.”
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) underscored the need for judges to give fair hearing while adjudicating on criminal matters.
On the issue of confessional statements that are often retracted by accused persons which stall trials, Mahmud advised that the video or tape recordings of confessional statements must be done properly in a regulated environment that would guarantee the authenticity of the statement.
He decried the lack of unity of purpose among institutions that are saddle with the duties of criminal justice administration in the country.
“The criminal justice architecture does not assist institutional synchronization in the administration of criminal justice.”
In the same vein, the Director General, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Prof. Deji Adekunle who was the keynote speaker at the roundtable, identified lack of cooperation and communication between the different participants in the criminal justice system as one of the main causes of malfunction in the sector.
He recommended the need to enhance human and institutional capacity with the regard to the provisions and conceptual framework of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
