THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IN THE SPEEDY DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) was signed into law in 2015 in a bid to revolutionize the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. It repealed the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Southern and Northern Nigeria respectively.
The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the system of Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect, defendant, and victim.
As noted above, one of the purposes of the Act is the enhancement of speedy administration of criminal justice. According to the Chief Justice of Nigeria Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen, delay in the administration of justice is a major challenge facing the Nigerian Judiciary (Vanguard Newspaper 24th July, 2017). Delay has over the years no doubt been a major impediment to effective and speedy dispensation of criminal justice in Nigeria. The Act was therefore enacted to address this concern amongst others.
One major resultant effect of these delays is the overcrowding of prisons across the country. A report of the National Bureau of Statistics states that Awaiting Trial Persons (ATPs) account for a staggering 73% of the total prison population in the country.
The ACJA made some innovative provisions aimed at solving the problem of delays in criminal trials. These provisions have been put in place to ensure amongst others, speedy trial and quick disposal of criminal cases in the interest and as a right of a suspect, the defendant, the victim and in fact the society at large.
Image Source: cleen.org
A PEEP INTO SOME OF THE INNOVATIVE SECTIONS AIMED AT ENSURING SPEEDY DISPENSATION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015
In total, The ACJ Act has 495 Sections through which its tentacles spread across every major aspect of criminal justice system.
Section 110 ACJA provides for a timeline in which criminal trials must be commenced and concluded in Magistrates’ Courts. The Act requires that trial must commence within thirty days of filing and concluded within a reasonable time.
It further provides that where trial is not commenced within stipulated time (30 days) and concluded within a hundred and eighty days of arraignment, the particulars of the charge shall be forwarded to the Chief Judge with reasons for failure to commence or conclude the trial. It therefore follows that according to the Act, reasonable time means not more than one hundred and eighty days of arraignment
Section 396 (4), provided that the interval between each adjournment shall not exceed 14 working days. Where it becomes impracticable to conclude the trial after both parties have exhausted five adjournments each, section 396 (5) is to the effect that the interval between further adjournments shall not exceed seven days inclusive of weekends. The court is also mandated to award reasonable costs pursuant to section 396 (6), this is aimed at discouraging frivolous adjournments.
Another important factor that has also hindered the speedy conclusion of criminal trials over the years is the situation where cases have to be tried de novo because the presiding judge has been elevated to a superior court. Such circumstances have received consideration under the ACJA. Section 396 (7) allows a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal to preside as a High Court judge for the purpose of concluding a criminal case pending before the judge at the time of the elevation. The case shall however be concluded within a reasonable time.
However as regards the above, there have been arguments that the section is ultra-varies the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as the Constitution does not make provision for such instances. Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution provides thus;
1(1) The Constitution is Supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(3) 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”
Another novel provision in the ACJA aimed at speeding up criminal trials is section 111 which makes it mandatory for the Controller-General of Prisons to make returns (every 90 days) of all persons held in prison custody for more than 180 days after the date of arraignment. The contents of the returns include the name of the suspect, passport photograph, date of arraignment or remand, date of admission to custody, particulars of the offence charged, court of arraignment, name of prosecuting agency and any other relevant information. These returns shall be made to the following persons:
- The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court;
- Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory;
- President of the National Industrial Court;
- Chief Judge of the State in which the prison is situated and;
- The Attorney-General of the Federation.
The biggest criticism of the criminal justice system in Nigeria is the snail pace with which criminal justice is dispensed.
Following the introduction of the Act, a number of innovations emerged which not only improved the human rights in Nigeria by virtue of its laws, but also served as major breakthroughs to the problems of prolonged trials in federal courts.
The ACJA 2015, most especially the provisions discussed above are deliberate measures aimed at addressing this problem of unnecessarily prolonged criminal trials. Consequently, if implemented properly, the Act will no doubt restore the confidence of people in the criminal justice system.
18 out of the states in the country have adopted the Act as the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL). It is important for other states to follow in that direction to ensure speedy and efficient criminal justice delivery and uniformity in criminal justice administration across the board.
Written by: Kikelomo Lamidi and Collins Okeke - The Human Rights Law Service
BACKGROUND OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST IN NIGERIA
Nigeria’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was passed into law on May 28 2011 by President Goodluck Jonathan, after the longest legislative (11years) debate in the history of Nigeria.
The Freedom of Information Act gives everyone the right to request information, whether or not contained in any written form which is in the custody or possession of any public official, agency or institution howsoever described. The person requesting the information does not need to show any specific interest in the information or justify his/her reasons for making the request.
WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE REQUESTED?
The Freedom of Information Act provides that individuals have a right to request any recorded information held by a public authority. Recorded information isn’t restricted to information that is in written form, but also information or records that do not exist in print but can by regulation be produced from a machine.
WHO CAN YOU MAKE A REQUEST TO?
Sections 1 and 2 of the FOI Act establish the right of any person to apply for information or Records in the possession of a public institution.
You may request the information or record from any public official, agency or institution. The FOI Act does not ordinarily apply to private bodies (e.g. private companies, NGOs, etc.)
ARE THEIR INFORMATION THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE PUBLIC?
YES. These Exemptions under the Act are covered by Sections 11-19, (excluding section 13). These Exemptions cover:-
- International Affairs and Defense
- Law Enforcement and Investigation
- Personal Information
- Professional and Others
- Course or Research materials
HOW CAN I MAKE A REQUEST?
You can either request an FOI request orally or in writing.
Orally- An applicant may make an oral request to an authorized official of a government or public institution, who must then reduce the application into writing and provide a copy of the written application to the applicant.
In writing- It can be through a 3rd part. For Illiterate or disabled applicants who by virtue of their illiteracy or disability are unable to make an application for access to information or, they may make their application through a third party.
IS A REQUEST FREE OF CHARGE?
The only charges for a request are limited to standard charges for document duplication and Fees transcription where necessary.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER A REQUEST IS MADE?
The Law provides that the public institution must make the information available within 7 days of receiving the request. Failure to give access to the information requested for, within the timelines provided by the Act is deemed as a refusal of access.
WHEN CAN MY APPLICATION BE REFUSED?
A refusal can only be valid when the information requested for falls under the information exempted from the public.
However, an application for information shall not be denied where the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs whatever injury that disclosure would cause.
Also, Section 20 of the Act provides for judicial review where information is denied
WHAT HAPPENS IF MY REQUEST IS REFUSED?
Any applicant, who has been denied access to information, or a part thereof, may apply to the Court for a review of the matter within 30 days after the public institution denies or is deemed to have denied the application.
The applications to the court are heard summarily. This is to ensure the prompt and expeditious disposal of the case. If the court finds that the request should not have been denied, the defaulting officer or institution commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N500, 000. Further, the court will order that the information be released as per the request.
It is also a criminal offence punishable on conviction by the Court with a minimum of 1 year imprisonment for any officer or head of any government or public institution to which this Act applies to willfully destroy any records kept in his custody or attempt to doctor or otherwise alter same before releasing the information.
CHALLENGES SO FAR?
The cardinal challenge lies in implementation. Different tiers of Nigerian government are known for making good laws and policies without implementation. Other challenges include:
- Entrenched Culture of Secrecy
- Poor record keeping practices and infrastructure.
- Low level of implementation and public awareness of the FOI Act
- Inadequate public knowledge of the FOI Act
- Absence of a Federal Information Commissioner.
Judicial Application of Election Petition Laws at the 2017 Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal 
PROCEEDINGS AND OUTCOMES OF THE ELECTION PETITIONS:
- APP V. CHIEF WILLIE OBIANO & 2 ORS (EPT/AN/GOV/01/2017)
- PRAISE OKECHUKWU & MPP V. CHIEF WILLIE OBIANO & 2 ORS (EPT/AN/GOV/02/2017)
- DR. PAUL CHUKWUDI OBIANASO V. WILLIE MADUABUCHI OBIANO & INEC. (EPT/AN/GOV/03/2017)
Finally, it would be good to interrogate the source of funding of an election petition process by a Respondent who is an incumbent and has access to State resources. It puts the Petitioner at a serious disadvantage where the Respondent can draw from State resources to retain the best of legal minds or advocates to defend a Petition whilst the Petitioner with his or her very limited personal funds struggles to retain a relatively inexperienced lawyer to prosecute the Petition with the humongous weigh of burden or onus of proof the Petitioner is expected to discharge. This unfortunate disparity or imbalance of capacity played out very evidently in the just concluded Anambra State election petition process. The retinue of Senior Advocates of Nigeria unleashed on the Tribunal by the Governor, the principal Respondent in the three petitions, sufficiently overawed the Tribunal, as it were, with their profound legal clout and sagacity, so much so that the Petitions were virtually dead on arrival.
- The Burden and standard of proof: It was clear that the main tenable ground against the election was the allegation of corrupt practices in the form of votes or ballot buying. However, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt where a Petitioner is challenging an election on grounds of corrupt practices again proved to be a very cumbersome burden to place on a Petitioner as manifested in the two petitions above decided on the merit. The Supreme Court had actually observed that this onus of proof is a very difficult task for a Petitioner to achieve. And what with the time limit for the hearing and determination of election Petition, if a Petitioner were to go out of his way to call the large number of witnesses and deploy the massive documentary evidence necessary to discharge that heavy burden on him, he might end up running out of time in the course of hearing and run the risk of the Petition being struck out for expiration of the time limit.
- Expanding the Rule on Non-Compliance: The rule on substantial non-compliance should not be restricted to what transpired on the election day. This is so because matters such as voters registration, unlawful campaign outside of the statutory period, campaign funding, accreditation of voters, collation of results etc, form the composite process of an election, any of which could be manipulated to thwart the fairness of an election and totally change the outcome thereof. Hence, if any of these components of the election process is not conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act, it should be permissible for a Petitioner to ground his Petition on such default without being foreclosed by the argument that such default is a pre-election matter.
- Cost of litigating or prosecuting election petition: The cost of litigating or prosecuting an election petition is usually heinous, starting from the procurement of relevant election documents to use as documentary evidence to the hiring of competent legal representation. The Petitioners herein obviously could not afford the cost of securing the CTC of the election documents to support their petitions. Hence, they placed reliance mostly on newspaper publications, which the Tribunal held as having no probative value. Also the Petitioner in Petition No. 2 had to hire a fairly young Counsel, because she and her Party could not afford the services of a more competent senior Counsel or a Senior Advocate. The Petitioner in Petition No. 3 was even in a more dire situation hence his decision to represent himself. The fact that he failed to affix an NBA stamp/seal on his final address brought to the fore his relative inexperience. The Respondents, who had more financial muscles, were in a more advantageous position; hence they unleashed a retinue of Senior Advocates against the Petitioners who stood no chance against such highly experienced and skilled Senior Advocates.
- Access to election materials and documents: On the issue of access to and high cost of procuring relevant election documents needed for election petitions, it has previously been suggested by this writer that INEC should immediately after announcing the result of an election, make available at no cost, certified copies of all relevant election documents to all the political parties to facilitate fair challenges against the election outcome. Alternatively, certified copies of such documents may be made available by INEC to the National Library, which will in turn issue at nominal cost recertified copies to any person who wishes to have them be it for election petition, research, or other personal or public purposes.