Lawyer, CDHR Disagree over Supreme Court’s Ruling on Saraki
You’re treading on boundaries of contempt, warns ex-NBA chief, Daudu
The reactions trailing the decision by the Supreme Court to grant a stay of proceedings on the trial of the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) continued yesterday with a lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede, faulting the views expressed by learned brother, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) on the matter.
Oluyede commended the Supreme Court for saving the judiciary from embarrassment by granting the request for a stay of proceedings in the trial of Saraki.
He argued that the controversy generated by the development was unnecessary because there was nothing wrong with the decision taken by the apex court.
He said the court did nothing wrong in accepting the undertaking given by lawyers in the case.
Oluyede described as unconstitutional the provision of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which prohibits stay of proceedings in criminal proceedings.
“Section 306 of the ACJA is unconstitutional null and void in so far as it seeks to limit the exercise of judicial powers vested in the courts by Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended,” the lawyer said in a statement yesterday.
According to him, the criticism of the court by some eminent lawyers over its handling of the Saraki case was unnecessary.
Oluyede, who cited several authorities in support of his position, argued that no legislature in Nigeria had the power to enact legislation that limits the exercise of judicial power or “ouster clause” as was argued by rights activist, Femi Falana, SAN.
He said though he did not agree with the position that Section 306 of the ACJA qualifies as ouster clause, Section 4(8) of the constitution expressly forbids such provisions and dis-empowers the legislature from making any such law.
He said: “To do so, the legislature would have to amend the constitution and that procedure is not the same as the mere passing of a bill into law as was done with the ACJA.
“It is therefore more strange and bizarre that any lawyer would castigate the apex court or any court for that matter for ignoring the so called “ouster clause” constituted by Section 306 of the ACJA especially as it expressly conflicts with the powers donated to the judiciary by the Constitution, part of which is the power to order stay of any proceedings.
“In this regard the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 expressly provide in Order 4 Rule 4(iv) that the Civil Rights Court may “Grant injunction restraining the respondent from taking further steps in connection with the matter or maintaining status quo or staying all actions pending the determination of a fundamental rights application.
However, in its reaction to the disagreement, the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), stated that the argument of Falana against the decision best represented the position of the law.
The CDHR in a statement signed by its president, Malachy Ugwummadu, however noted that the contributions of Oluyede and Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), were on the other hand, an incorrect interpretation of the section which prohibits the reckless suspension of the criminal cases.
According to the Rights group, Falana critically intervened by making the following clear points:
“It was wrong for the Supreme Court to have reversed the gains painstakingly made with the combined provisions of Sections 306 and 396(2) of the ACJA 2005 which oust the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain applications for stay of proceedings in criminal trials
“Section 396 (2) is to the effect that any objection including preliminary objections) shall only be considered along with the substantive issue.
Meanwhile, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), yesterday warned lawyers and media professionals who have been commenting on the Supreme Court grant of stay of proceedings in the case against Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, using “uncouth language,” to beware of being held contemptuous of the highest court in the country.
Daudu in a statement signed by him yesterday, expressed surprise that some lawyers were quoted in newspaper reports as describing the decision of the Supreme Court as “illegal”, a position that was almost sacrilegious to take in the nation’s justice system.
“That is most unfortunate as decency and elementary regard for the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court should restrain every citizen of this country, particularly a legal practitioner, from using such base and scurrilous language against the highest court of the land.
“It is a known legal axiom that a decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria cannot be illegal in any form or manner as it is binding on all persons and authorities in this country. If a person is aggrieved by the decision of the court, the only approach is to wait for an opportunity to arise and such a person can ask the Court to overrule itself or depart its earlier decision,” he stated.
The senior advocate warned that “no amount of political inclination or rascality should prompt or compel a lawyer or even a layman to employ such uncouth language against the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
He advised that the lawyers who have been passing negative comments on the decision of the Supreme Court are “treading dangerously on boundaries of contempt of the Supreme Court.