By Tina Amanda
Some Lawyers have attributed the attitude of judges and lawyers to matters and lack of judges to the delay in speedy dispensation of justice, especially in criminal cases.
This was stated during a debate on the unconstitutionality of section 376 (7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015: Implications on the speedy dispensation of corruption cases, organised by FIDA Rivers and supported by MacArthur Foundation in Port Harcourt.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN and a debate discussant, Chukwuka Ikwuazom, who argued against the unconstitutionality of section 376 (7) of the ACJA, which was recently nullified by the supreme court, called for the amendment of the Constitution to back up the section for speedy dispensation of justice.
“This discussion is timely in that we should discuss the delay we see in the dispensation of justice, not just for criminal justice but justice in general in Nigeria.
“What we try to do here today is to proffer solutions on how to enhance the administration of justice and eliminate the delays we see. Since the supreme court has said section 376 (7) is unconstitutional, the way to deal with that is to amend the Constitution and make it clear under no circumstances can a judge go on to conclude a matter at the lower court.
“The section was trying to deal with the mischief of a judge hearing a criminal matter for many years; just at the point the case was to be concluded, the judge got elevated to the court of appeal, and the matter had to start de Novo.
“It is not the only instance that occasion delays a whole lot of things; several suggestions were made, such as the appointment of judges. Most notably, in my view, I think there is a need to change attitude; many problems we have with the dispensation of justice are attitudinal.
“Look at the Orji Uzo Kalu matter; you see that the matter went on for about twelve (12) years, but what occasioned the delay was the two interlocutory appeals that were taken to the supreme court and back. Thank God the ACJA also addressed the issue.
“There are litigants who come to court to delay proceedings deliberately, they employ all kinds of tactics to make sure that matters do not proceed expeditiously, and I cited an example. If you have brought an application and the court rule against you, you can not wait till the end of the matter, and you take an appeal on the grounds.
“Lawyers come to court to unnecessary adjournment; matters are adjourned five, seven weeks. Lawyers are put on notice but wait for the eve of the proceedings to say they are unavailable; these are all attitudinal issues”.
Director Rivers State Ministry of Justice, Cordelia Uwuma Eke, who argued for the unconstitutionality of section 376 (7), said the section conflicts with the Constitution and needs to be nullified.
“The implication of all these is that section 376 (7) conflicts with the Constitution. As such, it must be nullified because any law contradictory or conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution must be nullified.
“The argument has been that particular section is trying to cure the problem of delay because a lot of time when a judge is elevated, the case has to start all over. Part of my position is this; we should not just look at Orji Uzo Kalu’s case as the only problem of speedy dispensation of justice; cases can start de Novo when a judge retires or dies”.
Chairperson FIDA Rivers State, Adata Bio-Briggs, said in the interest of speedy dispensation of justice, the debate was based on the supreme court judgement as decided in Ude Jones Udeogu Vs Federal Government 2019, which nullified section 376 (7) of the ACJA.
“We are here to debate if the provision meant for the dispensation of justice has been nullified. How do we solve the issue or get the solution to speedy dispensation of justice on criminal matters? The discussion will form a memorandum of what we will forward to the policymakers on whatever we have decided”.
