The Illegalities of Executive Order No. 6 and Travel Ban
This article by Ebunolu Adegboruwa, thoroughly examines President Muhammadu Buhari’s Executive Order No. 6 and the ensuing Travel Ban, pointing out their illegalities, contradictions, and violations of several constitutional provisions, while suggesting measures like a holistic upgrade of law enforcement and the Judiciary, as a more effective way of fighting corruption
Afew weeks ago, Nigerians woke up to learn about a certain Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 (EO 6), on the preservation of suspicious assets connected with corruption and other relevant offences. By this Order, it is expected that persons affected thereby, will be denied access to any sum of money that is suspected to be a proceed of crime. The President in signing this Order, placed heavy reliance upon Section 5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The general purport of EO 6, is to place a general restrictions upon dealings connected with suspicious assets, subject to corruption related investigations or inquiries, in order to preserve same. It then listed in its Schedule, several cases already filed in court, against certain named individuals.
The Manifest Contradictions Inherent in EO 6
By simple logic, the target of the President in signing this Order, is SUSPICIOUS ASSETS, not persons. Also, these suspicious assets are deemed to be the subject of ongoing investigations or inquiries, meaning clearly that they are outside the purview of ongoing prosecution or existing court proceedings. EO 6 in its Schedule, would however, proceed to list a number of pending cases which have already been filed in court with extant charge numbers, taking Order away from suspicious assets. So, from the outset, the Schedule is fighting against the Order itself.
An asset or a person is under investigation, when it or he, has not been subject of any court proceedings, as once a charge or information has been filed before a court of law, it is outside the province of investigation or inquiry; what is left, is immediate prosecution. The logic here is that, the prosecution will not prefer a charge against any person, unless investigation has been concluded and a prima facie case has been established, necessitating the need to file an information against the suspect, in court. So, you cannot arraign a person before a court, and at the same time, be claiming to be investigating the same person; it’s a huge contradiction, both in law and in fact. Thus, the locus classicus case of Ogor
v Kolawole (1983) 1 NCR 342, is very instructive on this point. In that case, the applicants had applied for a declaration, that the orders remanding them in custody were unconstitutional, and applied for the quashing of the orders. The Magistrate had in a charge against the Applicants, refused the Applicant’s bail in order to afford the police more time to conduct their investigation without interference
and remanded the Applicants in custody. Ayorinde J, (as he then was) in quashing the said remand order, gave a most logic and sound dictum as follows: “The reason given by the first Respondent suggests that he was under the impression that the police had not completed their investigation of the offences supposed to have been committed by the Applicants before the latter were brought to court.” His Lordship further, went on to hold that, by virtue of Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (which has been replicated as Section 31 of the ACJA), “it may be said that, a police officer is expected to release a suspect in a criminal complaint on bail where investigations into the complaint have not be completed.” The High Court Judge therefore, in relying on Section 32(4) of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria (now section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution) held that it will be wrong in law and unconstitutional, to incarcerate or keep an accused in custody, pending the completion of investigations into the complaint against him... It should be assumed that, criminal cases when taken to court are ripe for hearing, not for further investigation, and that they are not there on mere suspicion, which cannot be regarded as reasonable suspicion as required under Section 32 (1)(c) of the Constitution (now 35(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution).
It is therefore, manifestly clear, that the Executive arm of government, cannot reasonably rely upon Section 5 of the Constitution to distrain assets of citizens who are subject of criminal prosecution in a court of law. It is a contradiction of the absurd. The prosecution, either through the police, the EFCC, ICPC, Customs, NAPTIP, etc, is part and parcel of the Executive arm of government. The powers to be exercised by these agencies on behalf of the Executive over suspects and their assets, is limited in law, to when they are still under investigation. And that is why, Section 31 (1) and (2) of ACJA has granted wide powers to the Executive, to deal with this. However, once a person has been arraigned before a court of law, he leaves the realm of suspicion or investigation, by the Executive.
Section 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation –
a. Shall be vested in the President and may, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation; and
b. Shall extend to the execution and
maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.”
It is trite that, the Constitution is seen as a body of fundamental principles or established precedents, according to which the State and all its agencies are acknowledged to be governed. It is a charter, social code, canon, body of laws, rules and regulations, which guarantees inalienable fundamental rights to certain freedoms inherent in human beings. However, executive orders as apparently seen in the current administration, seem to negate from these basic principles, tenets of law and governance, as enshrined and guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution.
In the whole gamut of EO 6, there is nowhere reference is made to any law or regulation that the Executive seeks to maintain through this Order, save to seek to preserve assets subject of criminal prosecution, before the court. Section 5 does not confer any power on the Executive, to maintain or preserve pending court cases. and then, at the same time, empower the Executive to steal those powers, through Executive Orders.
EO 6 Violates the Principle of Separation of Powers
Just in the same way that Section 5 of the Constitution vests executive powers in the President, so also has Section 4 thereof vests upon the Legislature, the power of law making. That power is deemed to have been exercised for the promulgation of the 1999 Constitution which, in its Sections 35 and 41 respectively, has granted the right to
“IT IS THEREFORE, MANIFESTLY CLEAR, THAT THE EXECUTIVE ARM OF GOVERNMENT, CANNOT REASONABLY RELY UPON SECTION 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO DISTRAIN ASSETS OF CITIZENS WHO ARE SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW....ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED BEFORE A COURT OF LAW, HE LEAVES THE REALM OF SUSPICION OR INVESTIGATION, BY THE EXECUTIVE”
personal liberty and freedom of movement, to all citizens. These sections can be altered, either by amending the Constitution, or through judicial intervention, by the court, but surely the Executive arm of the Realm, cannot rely upon EO 6, as the basis of tinkering with constitutional provisions. The liberty of a citizen is as sacrosanct as the right to life, it shouldn’t be toyed with or threatened, just by the fiat of the Executive arm. Ditto the freedom of movement.
The same Constitution has also empowered the courts, in Section 6 thereof, with the power of adjudication, in respect of all disputes. So, if the Executive, either through the regular police force or specialised agencies such as EFCC or ICPC, has raised certain allegations against a citizen through an information filed in court, it becomes a dispute, which has entered the realm of judicial powers, taking such dispute completely away from the executive. In this regard, it will be a constitutional aberration, for the executive to submit a dispute before the court through an information already filed and entered in the court, and at the same time, seek to regulate, take over or monitor the assets of persons already charged to court as Defendants. That surely is not the purport of Section 5 of the Constitution, as the same document cannot be read to be fighting itself, to give powers to the courts, and then, at the same time, empower the Executive to steal those powers, through Executive Orders.
The doctrine of separation of powers therefore, means that the three arms of government must function independently and without interference from another arm, save in situations of checks and balances, for the ultimate good of the State and the citizens.
In EO 6, the executive arm is combining the power of legislation, along with the power of adjudication, leading to a situation of dictatorship, conflict of interest and totalitarianism. That should not, and cannot happen in a constitutional democracy. So, in this regard, resort to examples in Britain and other jurisdictions, are unhelpful to interprete the express provisions of our own unique Constitution.
Indeed, there are other extant legislations, such as the EFCC Act, which contain ample provisions, for the interim or permanent forfeiture of assets subject of criminal prosecution, as to totally make EO 6 unnecessary. EO 6 became manifestly illegal, the moment it listed several criminal cases already filed and pending before various courts, in its First Schedule, altogether numbering about 155. The Executive arm, cannot be dragging the issue of jurisdiction with a court properly created by the Constitution, as Courts are always mindful to guard their jurisdiction, jealously. Consequently, the courts should find no difficulty in striking down Executive Order No 6.
Illegalities of the Travel Ban Not long after EO 6 was signed and published, Nigerians again received news of a travel ban, also listing the names of several prominent Nigerians, whose liberty was being circumscribed. Like its parent ‘legislation’ (as indeed that is what EO 6 is), the travel ban also listed the names of prominent citizens, who are already listed as Defendants in several criminal cases pending and continuing before various courts across the land.
The executive order banning about fifty Nigerians from traveling abroad, flagrantly violates the provisions of Section 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that:
“41 (1) – Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refuse entry thereto or exit therefrom”.
The freedom of movement, is key to the exercise of the right to life, as indeed a person restrained hardly has access to meaningful life of his own. Thus, in Agbakoba’s case, even though the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Government on the ownership of the international passport, it nonetheless makes its arbitrary seizure unconstitutional simply because the passport is tied to the right of ingress and egress. To therefore deprive a citizen the right to move, is to deprive him of life in itself. This shouldn’t come through the fiat of the Executive, subject to its usual abuses, as we have witnessed in similar circumstances.
Presumption of Innocence The presumption of innocence, is the legal principle in criminal cases, which states that one is considered, treated and regarded as innocent until otherwise proven guilty. This basically means that, until a judicial pronouncement is made by a competent court of law on the guilt or otherwise of a person, he is to be treated the same way that a regular and free person in the society will be treated; any suggestion to the opposite would constitute a breach of the fundamental rights of the individual citizen, as guaranteed under Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution. The purport of this section means that, where an individual is charged to court with an offence under the Nigerian criminal laws, we cannot presume his guilt until he has been so adjudged by the court, after a full trial. The logic of this is simply that, for one reason or the other, the accused person may turn out to be innocent, whereas if his innocence had not been presumed and preserved at the outset, certain damning decisions may have been taken against him, wrongly. This was indeed the reason behind the change in nomenclature, in the various criminal procedure statutes, of referring to citizens undergoing criminal trials as ‘Defendants’ instead of ‘accused persons’, as in some cases ultimately, they may have been wrongly accused. If it is odious enough to describe a person going through criminal trial as ‘accused’, will it not be more defamatory and judgemental, to even restrain him from traveling or having access to his property, when his guilt has not been properly established?
The other element to Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution and presumption of innocence, is that the burden of proving the guilt of the Defendant lies and will forever lie, on the prosecution, which has the duty and obligation to produce sufficient evidence and material facts, to prove the guilt of the Defendant “beyond reasonable doubt”; and once the prosecution cannot decisively convince the court of the Defendant’s guilt through full and proper trial, then the latter remains legally ‘not guilty’ and free to exercise the freedom of movement. Surely, a person cannot on his own, raise criminal allegations against his own self, and be begging to be dragged to court; so, it is the body that prefers the criminal charge, that should be held accountable to prove it. To this extent, tampering with the assets or the liberty of the Defendant, whilst the prosecution is yet to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, is to cleverly shift the evidential burden to the Defendant.
The other issue is, delay in trials generally, as we now know in Nigeria, it takes average five to ten years, for a criminal matter to be concluded up to the final court. If the sole reason by the executive in digging up the executive order and the subsequent travel ban, is to deny the Defendant access to his assets whilst undergoing criminal trial, two disturbing issues arise from this. First, it shows clearly that, the government itself is aware that prosecution Lawyers are not well paid, and so criminal prosecution is not attractive to the very good Lawyers. So, how do you then transfer the burden of inadequate funding, or poor prosecution, to the Defendant? The second issue, is that of State oppression. It is established in our laws already that, one of the factors that the court will consider in granting bail to a Defendant in very serious criminal trials, is the likelihood of his incarceration affecting his financial capacity to defend his case or prosecute his appeal, if already convicted. To strip the Defendant who is yet to go through full trial, of access to his finances and his liberty and freedom, is for the State to indirectly seek to castrate its opponent in legal battle, and thus, render the trial an unfair exercise. It is to muzzle the Defendant and cripple him and in that wise, force him to surrender to a conviction that he may otherwise not have suffered, had he had access to his funds and liberty. Ultimately therefore, it is prosecution through oppression, just to secure the ‘guilt’ of the Defendant, at all cost. A case in point in this regard is that of Lakanmi & Anor. v A-G., West & Ors (1971) 1 U.I.L.R 201, wherein the executive tried unsuccessfully, to usurp and trample upon the powers of the court. And even when the Supreme Court eventually struck down the odious executive order, the military still purported to annul judicial authority. But, that was a military regime, which we have all now sworn never to tolerate in governance again, forever. See also, Emezue & Ors v Governor, Delta State & Ors (2014) LPELR-CA/B/286/2009.
Executive Order is Usurpation of Judicial Authority The other aspect of the travel ban, is the usurpation of the power of the judiciary. In virtually all the cases pending in court, the Defendants have all been arraigned and granted bail, by the court. Under and by virtue of Section 35 of the Constitution, every citizen is entitled to right to personal liberty, but one of the restrictions to the exercise of that right as expressed under Section 35 (1)(c), is where it is necessary to bring him before a court to be arraigned. That is where the Executive comes in, namely to bring the Defendant to court. However, once the arraignment has taken place, the opportunity for bail is a temporary restoration of the right to personal liberty. According to the learned authors of the authoritative text The Criminal Law and Procedure of the Southern States of Nigeria, Akinola Aguda, page 76 at paragraph 253, “Bail are sureties taken by a person duly authorised, for the appearance of an accused person at a certain day and place, to answer and be justified by law”.
Thus, in Ekwenugo v F.R.N (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 171 at 187 para G, bail means to set at liberty a person arrested or imprisoned, on security being taken for his appearance, on a day and place certain. In the case of Elisha v C.O.P. (1974) 4 ECSLR 362 at page 367, it was held that: “The essence of bail is that the accused person appears to take his trial.” See also, Eyu v State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 602, where it was held that, the sole purpose for granting bail is to enable an accused person to come back to face his trial; Dogo v COP (1980) 1 NCR 14 at 19, where it was held that the sole requirements as to bail, are primarily to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.
A court granting bail to a Defendant, is a temporary restoration of his right to personal liberty, upon certain conditions. And this being the case, he remains on bail for the entire duration of his trial, subject to good behaviour. In that regard, nobody or authority should have the power to intermeddle with the right to personal liberty or movement, of a Defendant who is already enjoying an order of court admitting him to bail. The bail is an order of the court, which should not be subject to another variation from the executive arm of government. This being the case, a travel ban, upon the life and liberty of a Defendant already admitted to bail by the court, is a direct affront by the executive upon judicial power.
In some specific cases of Defendants like Mr. Dele Belgore, SAN, Chief Jumoke Akinjide, etc, the courts before which they appeared, already granted them permission to travel abroad for medical treatment. A travel ban upon such a Defendant, would be a direct reversal of the order of the court, by the executive, which indeed should not be. Again, it must be stressed that, most of the Defendants have already deposited their international passports with the various courts, as part of the conditions for their bail, such that it is only the court that can release such passport to enable the Defendant travel. What the travel ban has done, is to take over the administration of the Defendant from the court, as in some cases, the court may grant leave to travel, but the executive may frustrate such leave via the travel ban. For us as free born citizens, it matters not that a Defendant undergoing criminal trial has been labelled with the toga of murder or corruption in any charge sheet, it is the ingredients stated in the proof of evidence, the real trial proceedings and the totality of the case presented by the prosecution, that will determine the guilt or otherwise of such Defendant. And until we come to the conclusion of such trial, in any case, no executive power should be relied upon to trample on the rights and liberties of the citizen, merely on account that he is suspected to have committed a crime, but yet without proof.
Consequence of the Illegality of Executive Order 6 Section 6 6(b) of the Constitution, vests judicial powers in the courts created by the Constitution. Section 4 of the same Constitution, grants the power of law making upon the legislature. Section 35 grants right to personal liberty, whilst Section 41 guarantees right to freedom of movement. Section 36 donates the right to be presumed innocent before and during trial. It is clear that, the executive order and travel ban both constitute a derogation from these clear sections of the Constitution.
By Section 1 (1) of the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land and it is stated expressly in Section 1
“IN EO 6, THE EXECUTIVE ARM IS COMBINING THE POWER OF LEGISLATION, ALONG WITH THE POWER OF ADJUDICATION, LEADING TO A SITUATION OF DICTATORSHIP, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND TOTALITARIANISM. THAT SHOULD NOT, AND CANNOT HAPPEN IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY”
law of the land and it is stated expressly in Section 1 (3) that “if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”
The courts have a sacred duty to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of the citizen, especially in relation to right to liberty and freedom of movement. It is better to have a State where citizens are free, than a prosperous State where rights are violated and denied. If the reason for all these draconian actions is simply to fight corruption, then they cannot be justified at all, and the courts must rise in defence of the citizens to strike them down. See A-G., Kebbi State v Jokolo & Ors (2013) LPELR-35/2010CA.
Circumstances of Derogation from Constitutional Rights
The Executive may seek to place reliance upon the provisions of Section 41(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as the basis of derogation from the rights of movement granted to citizens, to claim that EO 6 is a regulation that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, if under Section 41(2)(a), it imposes “... restrictions on the residence or movement of any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed a criminal offence in order to prevent him from leaving Nigeria.”
First, the executive has no power to make laws, such that it cannot hide under the derogation principle as stated above. Second, the burden placed upon the prosecution (the executive) in respect presumption of innocence, is a heavy one which cannot be discharged on the platform of the derogation principle. Thus, in the case of COP v Amuta 2017) LPELR-SC.117/2012, the Supreme Court, per Ogunbiyi JSC confirmed that “the constitutional provision on the presumption of innocence of an accused person, is sacrosanct and settled.”
Third, the principle of derogation, is not applicable under the African Charter, which is now an enforceable legislation in Nigeria. Under and by virtue of Article 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, freedom of movement of every Nigerian citizen consists of freedom within Nigeria and freedom of exit from Nigeria. See the cases of Director, SSS v Agbakoba (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314 at 373, FRN v Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 113 at 180, Ejiofor v Okeke (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 373, Onagoruwa v IGP (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 193) 593. So that, in all ramifications, the EO 6 and the travel ban made under it, both remain illegal and unenforceable.
Likely Incidence of Political Persecution and Witch Hunting through EO 6
The timing of EO 6 makes it more suspect, coming as it were, after about three years of governance, by the present administration. The 2019 general elections are around the corner and the integrity of Mr. President to combat and fight corruption, constitutes the biggest hurdle to win back or sustain his image before the public eye. In some quarters, he has been praised as sending some former governors to jail, but a holistic review of the crusade against corrupt public office holders shows that it is more of a selective campaign, on those perceived enemies of his political agenda.
Imperatively, the 50 Nigerians affected by the travel ban, constitute those individuals who are viewed as not being in the good books of the Federal Government, and to score a political goal. In essence, the executive order on travel ban coming at this point in time, amounts to ruling by decree in a democracy, which is being interpreted as an indirect attempt to weaken the opposition and pave way for an easy ride, for the President’s men. People readily point at similar people who have similar cases, but were not listed in the travel ban, or the case in point of the former Finance Minister, who confessed to certificate forgery, but was let off the hook, and a serving Senator, whose record was confirmed as having attended College, but failed and is being prosecuted.
Holistic Upgrade of the Judiciary as Solution Now the other point about the EO 6, is the seeming helplessness of government in the prosecution of corruption cases. The gateway to truly fight corruption is the Judiciary, in this case, the law courts. It should be easier for the government to genuinely invest in the Judiciary, and in that wise, get good results, than pursuing perceived enemies through Executive Orders. In the Federal High Court where the Honourable Justice Mohammed Idris held sway before his deserved elevation to the Court of Appeal, Lawyers and Litigants would stand outside the court room, come rain come shine, for hours on end, without any space to sit. How do you conduct meaningful criminal proceedings, in such an atmosphere? And yet, many prominent corruption cases were assigned to that court. The Federal Government has been building the new Federal High Court complex on Bourdillon Road in Ikoyi for over seven years, without any hope of immediate completion. How on earth, can such a system fight corruption?
There is nationwide outcry against the intolerable delay in the prosecution of high profile corruption cases no doubt, but these cases have received public attention because of the status of the Defendants therein, whereas several other criminal cases are delayed even for longer periods, due mainly to lack of judicial personnel, poor infrastructure, avoidable congestion and long hand recording of court proceedings. Several other land, chieftaincy, admiralty and even fundamental rights cases, are also pending in several courts across the land, beyond the hype about corruption cases. The better approach, is to adopt a holistic evaluation of the judicial process, to rescue it from imminent decay and disaster, otherwise, the war against corruption will just keep moving in circles.
There is no way this government can sustain Executive Order No 6 of 2018, and the travel ban following after it. As many Nigerians have already indicated in their wholesome condemnation of this illegality, it is best to withdraw it and return to the drawing board, in order to discover how to empower the prosecuting agencies for better performance, fund the Judiciary and then partner with the major stakeholders, in the administration of justice, the NJC, NBA, EFCC, ICPC, the Police and other allied partners, to achieve smooth and effective administration of criminal justice; as if that is truly accomplished, even corruption cases will fall in line of speedy adjudication and there will be no need to be clamouring for special courts, special Judges and even special Lawyers, to handle corruption cases.
Sometime in May, 2018, the Sun newspaper the report of The Corruption and Other Financial Crimes published Cases Trial Monitoring Committee, set up by the National Judicial Council, as follows:
“The Corruption and Financial Crime Cases Trial Monitoring Committee (COTRIMCO), has identified poor prosecution and multiplicity of charges, among others, as some of the factors militating against speedy disposal of corruption cases.
Other factors listed by the Committee included absence of counsel for parties in Court; reliance on irrelevant documentary evidence; non-adherence to Court rules/procedures; retirement/ transfer of Judges; re-assignment of cases to start de- novo; amendment of charges after commencement of trial, and cumbersome record transmission process to Court of Appeal.
These were contained in the Interim Report presented by the Chairman of the Committee, Justice Suleiman Galadima (rtd), at the 86th Meeting of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
According to a statement by the Director of Information, National Judicial Council (NJC), Soji Oye, the Committee distilled the issues from its findings from discussions with Heads of Courts, and observations made from the surprise visits of the Members to Courts handling corruption and financial crime cases in some parts of Country.
On the issue of poor prosecution, the Committee observed that offenders are charged to Court before proper investigations of the charges are done, and afterwards, expecting the Court to detain such alleged offenders till conclusion of their investigation.
The Committee also identified inadequate prosecuting personnel at the Prosecution Agencies, to the effect that some prosecutors lack the requisite experience to prosecute corruption cases, which invariably leads to poor handling of such cases.
COTRIMCO further blamed the delay on lack of commitment on the part of some prosecutors, and collusion between them and defence counsel, to pervert justice either by stalling the trials of cases or achieving pre-determined results.
It also observed that, there is no threshold to the number of witnesses the prosecution calls; inadequate funding of Prosecution Agencies to carry out thorough investigation of the corruption cases with attendant low quality prosecution cases, and frequent requests for adjournment by the Prosecutors.
In the area of duplication of charges, the Committee submitted that the prosecution in most cases, duplicate charges which could be up to 170 against a Defendant, but at the end, are unable to substantiate them, leading to the discharge of such Defendant.
On multiplicity of charges, the Committee also observed the issue of multiplicity of cases involving the same Defendants, and on similar subject-matters going on in different Courts at the same time.
This particular factor, according to the Committee,, makes it impossible for some trials to proceed. In spite of the fact that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, provides for day-to-day trials of Criminal Cases, a Defendant who is undergoing trial in other Courts is always unavailable for trial.
On the part of the Court, the Committee identified retirement\transfer of Judges handling such cases.
It noted that, when this happens, such cases which may have gone far, are re- assigned to another Judge to start de-novo;
Granting of remand order by a Court, without following up to ensure suspects are brought to Court; inadequate provision for proper record keeping, and shelving of Court files and other relevant documents in some Courts; cumbersome process of transmission of records from trial Courts, which impedes the early disposal of appeals; and difficulties associated with ascertaining addresses for service of process by Bailiffs.
It said the prison on its part, contributes to the delay, by failing to remind courts of subsisting orders to reproduce suspects in court, and most times lack means to convey awaiting trials to the law court.
For the speedy trial of corruption cases, the Committee recommends the importance of proper training for prosecution in the area of investigation, especially in the area of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
It also recommended the need for Prosecuting Agencies, to have competent prosecution departments manned by qualified personnel; synergy between the various Prosecution Agencies, to enhance proper prosecution of criminal cases; use of professionals, such as Accountants, Auditors, etc, to investigate high profile and complicated cases; need for training and re-training of staff of court handling criminal cases, as well as proper funding for the Judiciary and Prosecuting Agencies.”
If we do not hasten to address these vital issues which have been raised in this detailed report, issuing dozens upon dozens of Executive Orders, will only be like the proverbial case of leaving leprosy to treat ringworm.
Ebunolu Adegboruwa, Constitutional Lawyer and Human Rights Activist, Lagos
“IN SOME SPECIFIC CASES OF DEFENDANTS LIKE MR. DELE BELGORE, SAN, CHIEF JUMOKE AKINJIDE, ETC, THE COURTS BEFORE WHICH THEY APPEARED, ALREADY GRANTED THEM PERMISSION TO TRAVEL ABROAD FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT. A TRAVEL BAN UPON SUCH A DEFENDANT, WOULD BE A DIRECT REVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT, BY THE EXECUTIVE.....”