- Judges’ elevation should not be an excuse to restart matters substantially tried
The elevation of High Court judges to the Court of Appeal has become an albatross to the administration of justice across the country. By some estimation, the 18 judges newly elevated may be handling more than one thousand cases, which will be jeopardised following their elevation. The grave implication is that regardless of how far the judges have gone in those cases, they would have to be started afresh. We consider such impact a travesty, and urge that the sweet reward for hard work for our judges should not mock our judicial system.
The impact is particularly worrisome for criminal trials, which have to be started afresh, perhaps after years of tedious gathering of material evidence during the scuttled trials. Sadly, some cases to be started afresh may be on a second missionary journey, as the first judges who tried them were also elevated years ago, necessitating a fresh start that is again now scuttled. Such rigmarole is grievous for the courts, prosecutors and defendants. That challenge led to the promulgation of section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA).
Section 396(7) provides: “Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a judge of a High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time”…”Provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.”
Nigerians hailed ACJA as cure to a major cause of delay in criminal justice in the country. Unfortunately, that solution has suffered a technical ambush. The Supreme Court held that the sub-section is an infraction of the 1999 constitution (as amended), in the high profile case involving Senator Orji Uzor Kalu and others. The court held that upon the elevation of a High Court judge to the Court of Appeal, the judge lacks jurisdiction to preside at the lower court, and as such, any decision reached by him is a nullity.
We believe that only those who stand to gain from the delay arising from the Supreme Court’s judgment, praised that decision. For us, we thought that higher national interest should have prevailed on the apex court to give effect to the provisions of section 396(7) of ACJA in that case. But, instead of wringing hands in frustration, we urge the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to proffer a solution to what amounts to a ridicule of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the proverbial common man.
The safest solution would be to amend the 1999
