THE ACJA: AN ALBATROSS OR REDEEMER IN NIGERIA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM?

the above extant and unreversed decisions of the courts of the land and the robust provision of 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (altered), Sections 293-299 of the ACJA are patently null and void to the extent of their inconsistencies with Sections35(4) and (5) of the Constitution.

It is my view that it is inconceivable, and is, indeed, sacrilegious, for the ACJA, to purport to empower a Magistrates’ Court to detain a Nigerian citizen for 28 days where the very Supreme Law of the land, the grundnorm, which is the Constitution, has specifically provided for 48 hours (2days) Maximum period of detention. May such judicial hara-kiri never occur in Nigeria.

Abrogation of Stay of Proceedings Regarding the issue of the abrogation of stay of proceedings under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, Section 306 of the ACJA provides laconically thus: “an application for a stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be granted”. The lucidity and clarity of this prosaically worded provision is too obvious to admit of any ambiguity or hair splitting.

The Law, as robustly enshrined in the Constitution, remains that an accused’s right of appeal is a constitutional right, which cannot be abated, compromised whittled down, or nibbled at. While section 233 (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution provides that an appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal, section 241 (1) (a) provides for similar provisions in respect of appeals from the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, High Court of a State, High Court of the FCT, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal, etc. an appeal under the Constitution can therefore be interlocutory or substantive.

The Supreme Court in the case of EYESAN v SANUSI (1984) LPELR-1185 (SC), warned that the “right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is a constitutional right exercisable by a party in a civil case. See section 222(a) and (b) of the 1979 Constitution. The right exercisable by a person who has complaints touching his civil rights and obligations against another person, or government is robustly enshrined under section 241 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. Once the exercise of this right of action has commenced, the exercise is not completed until the action is finally and completely determined by the court of 1st instance or the appeal court.

Also, since section 4(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), specifically provides that “the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any Law, that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a Court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law”. To the extent that section 306 of the ACJA purports to oust the jurisdiction of the Court from entertaining interlocutory appeals, such as stay of proceedings, it is to that extent null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

The powers of the Supreme Court to decide a case to finality therefore cannot be abrogated or ousted by any legislation subordinate to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not in the habit of making orders in vain and it possesses undoubted powers to correct itself whenever it errs and Counsel approach it for a review.

Once the Legislature has passed laws, the function of interpreting such laws falls within the exclusive precinct of the Courts. Even the High Court or Federal High Court is pre-eminently qualified to strike down the provisions of the ACJA for being inconsistent with section 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the latter of which guarantees fair hearing. A law that takes away a litigant's right of appeal for whatever reason, and at whatever stage is a bad and anachronistic law that must be struck down. Such a law is dead on arrival. To wait till a person’s rights have been determined before he appeals at the end of the case is an invitation to anarchy and self-immolation. God forbid a replication of BELLO v A.G, OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (pt 828) 1 where the appellate was whimsically executed while his appeal was pending and extant.

Chief Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN, OFR, FCIArb.