Rev. King must die by hanging, Supreme Court orders

The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the death sentence passed on the General-Overseer of the Christian Praying Assembly, Chukwuemeka Ezeugo (aka Rev. King), by a Lagos High Court in Ikeja on January 11, 2007, for murder and attempted murder of some of his church members in 2006.

A five-man bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Walter Onnoghen, in its unanimous judgement, dismissed the appeal by Ezeugo challenging the verdict of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, which had affirmed the conviction and the sentence passed on him by the Lagos High Court.

Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the lead judgement of the apex court, resolved all the 12 issues raised by Ezeugo in his appeal against him and dismissed the entire appeal for lacking in merit.

He said, “In his appeal to this court, 12 issues were distilled from the grounds of appeal by the appellant. The respondent had nine issues. The respondent’s nine issues were encompassed in the appellant’s 12 issues and, in spite of the imperfection in the appellant’s issues, I decided to determine the appeal on those issues. I considered all of them and at the end I came to the conclusion that, the appeal has no merit.

“Having considered all the arguments proffered by the learned counsel for the parties, in addition to the records, I resolve all the 12 issues formulated by the appellants against him. Consequently, I hold that the appeal is bereft of merit and it is hereby dismissed.

“The judgement of the Court of Appeal which had affirmed the judgement of the trial court is hereby affirmed. The prison terms of attempted murder are no longer relevant and discountenanced in view of the death penalty hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.”

The judgement dealt a final blow on the last effort by Ezeugo to free himself of the death sentence which has been hanging around his neck for over nine years.

The condemned cleric was arraigned before the Lagos High Court in Ikeja on September 26, 2006 on six counts of murder of a member of his church, Ann Uzoh, and attempted murder of five other members.

He was said to have poured petrol on the deceased and the five other victims and set them on fire for allegedly committing fornication.

Uzoh died on August 2, 2006, 11 days after the incident, as a result of the injuries which she sustained from the burns.

She was said to have been 65 per cent burnt in the fire incident. The trial judge, Justice Olubunmi Oyewole (now a Justice of the Court of Appeal), had in his judgement delivered on January 11, 2007 convicted Ezeugo and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment on each of the five counts of attempted murder and death sentence for murder.

Dissatisfied with Justice Oyewole’s judgement, Ezeugo appealed to the Court of Appeal.

But the Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction and the sentence passed on him.

He further appealed to the Supreme Court which also on Friday dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgements of both the Lagos High Court and the Court of Appeal.

In his opening remarks, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, who read the lead judgement, said, “The fact of this case could have been lifted from a horror film.

“At all material times, both parties agreed that the appellant was General Overseer of Christian Praying Assembly, Ikeja, Lagos. It was also agreed that he had a father-son and father-daughter relationship with the victims of the incident.

“The prosecution’s case was that the appellant accused six of his people of immoral behaviour. He called them together, beat each of them with many hard objects and after the beating, he assembled them downstairs, made them to kneel down and he caused petrol to be poured on them and a struck match thrown on them.

“They all sustained various degrees of burns. While five of them escaped, the sixth of them who later died sustained 65 per cent degree burns. You can imagine her last day in the hospital.

“Appellant denied this incident, saying though he punished them for immoral behaviour, the punishment was different from the incident that gave birth to this charge.

“He said they sustained injuries when a generator exploded. That was his case. But throughout the proceedings, this mysterious generator was never produced.”

Meanwhile, the Lagos State Government on Friday hailed the verdict of the Supreme Court. The State Government, through the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Adeniji Kazeem, said the judgement was another confirmation of the seriousness of Governor Akinwunmi Ambode’s administration to be decisive in fighting crime in the state. A statement signed by the Deputy Director, Public Affairs Office, Lagos State Ministry of Justice, Bola Akingbade, quoted the commissioner as saying, “This is just another confirmation that the government of his Excellency, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, is going to be very strong on fighting crime. Wherever a crime is committed, no matter how long it takes, the government of Lagos State will ensure that the perpetrators of this crime face justice eventually.

“I salute the Supreme Court for this erudite judgement and I want to assure the public that we will continue and we will not relent in our fight to make Lagos a safer, secure and more prosperous state.”

In December 2015, the apex court, presided over by Justice Walter Onoghen, had adjourned for judgement after entertaining arguments from counsel to prosecution and defence in the matter.

Rev. King must die by hanging, Supreme Court orders

Wike"s revelation an Indictment of the Supreme court - APC

•Says apex court’s ruling on 2015 Rivers guber election a complete miscarriage of justice

•Berates Peterside’s critics

The Rivers State Chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has described the revelations made by Chief Nyesome Wike about how he won the State Governorship Election dispute at the Supreme Court as an indictment of the apex court. Wike had publicly said during his well-publicised Thanksgiving Service of 7th February, 2016: “He (referring to former governor, Dr. Peter Odili) would call me at midnight to tell me what to do. He will say, ‘go to so, so place’. I took all his advice and here we are today victorious.”

Nyesom Wike

Rivers APC said in a statement signed by its Chairman, Dr. Davies Ibiamu Ikanya, and issued Tuesday in Port Harcourt that Wike’s confession had ended the mystery about how he procured the shocking judgement considering that Dr. Odili’s wife, Mrs. Mary Odili, is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

“That Wike may have influenced the outcome of the judgement given by the Supreme Court for PDP in Rivers State was further exposed by PDP supporters, who started celebrating the judgement by 9am – almost ten hours before the incredulous judgement was delivered at 6.45pm on Wednesday, January 27, 2016,” Rivers APC said.

The party regretted that Rivers people had by the judgement been denied the opportunity to vote for the governorship candidate of their choice simply because “to Wike, everything in this world, including every judgement, has a price tag.”

Rivers APC aligned itself with the position of the Head of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Committee, Prof. Itse Sagay, that the reasons adduced by the Supreme Court for its judgement on the Rivers guber election are not convincing. According to the erudite Scholar in his reaction titled, ‘Wike Climbed Into The Governorship Seat Over Dead Bodies’: “Everybody knows that people like Wike climbed into the governorship seat over dead bodies and over the blood of human beings. There were no elections, they wrote the results; the evidence is there.” Sagay added that what the Supreme Court has done is to set the clock of electoral excellence and fairness and credibility back by, “ I do not want to say a thousand years, but certainly it is taking us back to where we were before (former INEC Chairman, Prof. Atahiru) Jega came in and sanitised the system.”

The party expressed its conviction that “the blood of our 100 members killed to install Wike as Rivers State Governor will one day touch the minds of the Supreme Court Justices and make them to give correct judgements that will save Nigeria from the shame in the international community occasioned by this unjust judgement.”

The statement also berated those that are criticising the party’s gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Dakuku Adol Peterside, for his principled stand on the obvious misleading judgement of the Supreme Court. Dr Dakuku Peterside only quoted what Wike said in Church and drew the attention of the world to it without passing a judgement. The fact remains that Dr Peterside never ever criticized the judiciary. Every person knows that Dr Dakuku Peterside is a man of character and high moral standing. In other climes what Wike said in church could cause an outrage. The party dismissed those criticizing Dr Peterside in this regard as being insensitive to the inviolability and sanctity of life as the 100 souls of APC killed for Gov Wike to be so elected meant nothing to them. To us, these people are ignorant people who do not deserve any serious attention. If anybody or institution is angry, such an institution or fellow should shift their anger to Wike who shamelessly told the entire world how he procured his Supreme Court judgement and leave Dr Peterside out of this sad development in our judiciary.

For avoidance of doubt, kindly find attached herewith  a version of the youth tube recording of Gov. Nyesom Wike’s speech at his Thanksgiving Service in Port Harcourt Sunday, February 7, 2016.

Wike"s revelation an Indictment of the Supreme court - APC

Nothing Is Wrong With Supreme Court Judgment On Rivers – PDP Tells Odigie-Oyegun

 

…Says He would be held responsible for crisis in the State.

The  Chairman,  Rivers State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Bro. Felix Obuah says there is nothing wrong with the January 27 Judgment delivered unanimously by the seven Supreme Court Jurists led by the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Mahmud Muhammed.

PDP

Bro. Obuah explains that the PDP is not pleased with the comments emanating from the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Chief Odigie–Oyegun, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the judicial arm of government over the Supreme Court Judgment in favour of Governor Wike of Rivers State, saying that was not a view expected of a Statesman he ought to be.

The PDP Chairman describes Oyegun’s position as not only disrespect to the Eminent Justices, the Judiciary and the apex Court in the land but a dangerous threat to the survival of the hard earned democracy in the State and the nation, adding that it is most unfortunate and disappointing that such statement came from a senior citizen like Chief Odigie-Oyegun.

He notes that rather than commending the Justices of the Supreme Court for taking action to maintain the independence and unbiased position of the judiciary by declaring sound judgments as in the case of Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Delta, Abia and Ebonyi States, the APC National Chairman, Oyegun preferred to make such derogatory and unpatriotic statements about the Judiciary.

One thing is certain and that is the fact that the Supreme Court Justices took the part of honour and dignity by not yielding to the pressure and influence by the APC led Federal Government, demanding the nullification of the elections of the affected PDP State Governors; a commendable feat by the Supreme Court Justices.

Another truth revealed to us in Oyegun’s statements is the fact that the APC leadership was  and is not interested in the development and welfare of the people or simply put, good governance, but obviously interested in the economic resources of the States.

According to Oyegun, “we (APC) have lost every important resource-rich States to the PDP. No matter how crude oil prices have fallen, it is still the most important revenue earner for the country”. This statement clearly exposes the selfish and economic interest of the APC, rather than genuine quest for the development of the area; quite unfortunate!

One other issue of serious concern is the desperate declaration to the Rivers APC delegation that the national leadership of the party will give necessary support to ensure successes in subsequent elections in Rivers State, while responding to an earlier request by the leader of the delegation, Mr. Dakuku Peterside, for the Federal Government and the APC national leadership to ‘do all that it takes to win all 12 House of Representatives seats, three (3) Senate seats and 22 seats in the State Assembly that will enable us produce the Speaker of the House’.

Our view of this position is that even if it requires setting the State ablaze just for the APC to secure all these seats in the elections is of no consequence to the APC. This must not be allowed to be witnessed in our State, especially when everyone has his or her fundamental rights to vote for his or her choice.

It is therefore, important that we remind the APC leadership that we are in a democracy where the three arms of government must be made to function independently, with checks and balance; where people should be allowed to take decision based on their conviction and choice. It is only in a dictatorial regime that the Oyegun’s policies and principles can strive. The people have spoken and God has heard the voices of the people through the decision of the Supreme Court, only Odigie-Oyegun and the APC leadership know what they mean by investigating the applaudable judgment of the Apex Court.

It is on this premise that we call on all Nigerians to be on alert on what the APC led government wants to turn the judiciary and the entire country into.

We also call on the international community to prevail on the APC national leadership to respect the Constitution of the land and subject themselves to the rule of law as it is only through this that the rights of individuals and institutions can be guaranteed, thereby paving way for meaningful development and peace in the country.

Nothing Is Wrong With Supreme Court Judgment On Rivers – PDP Tells Odigie-Oyegun

Supreme Court Judgement: Brilliant and straightforward, says Delta Speaker

The Speaker, Delta State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon Monday Igbuya, on Tuesday described the Supreme Court judgement as brilliant and straightforward.

He also said Governor Okowa’s victory at the apex court was well deserved as “it is the will of a democratic majority”.

Igbuya in a statement issued in Abuja said Okowa’s victory at the Supreme Court should be seen as “historic”

He described Governor Okowa’s victory in the April 11, 2015 governorship election as a testimony of his recognition and his immense ability and contributions to the state.

“One was not in doubt that you would emerge the winner at the apex court” he said.

The Speaker acknowledged Okowa’s dogged commitment to the development and unity of the state.

He praised the governor for translating his campaign promises into concrete verifiable imperatives.

He also praised him for transforming the state to a cohesive, modern wealth creation enterprise.

“Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa is providing service oriented leadership to the people. He is directing the energies of the youths to creative and constructive channels. He is making Delta State politically vibrant and ethnically united” he said.

Igbuya, a man that will never violate the norms of good governance, progressive leadership, integrity and credibility, also promised to rise to his constitutional and public duties.

“The Delta State House of Assembly will give His Excellency, Governor Ifeanyi Okowa the needed support to move the state forward” he said.

An elated Igbuya appealed to Chief Great Ogboru and Chief O’tega Emerhor to join Governor Okowa in developing the state.

He expressed appreciation to the people of the State for electing Dr. Okowa, urging them to key- into the S.M.A.R.T agenda of the current administration.

“Let us work toward a better and greater Delta State” he added.

Supreme Court Judgement: Brilliant and straightforward, says Delta Speaker

Saraki: Sagay, Falana reject NBA’s apology to Supreme Court

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Augustine Alegeh (SAN), on Wednesday apologised to the Supreme Court on behalf of some lawyers who criticised the apex court for halting the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki on charges of false assets declaration before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

Alegeh tendered the apology during his address at the valedictory court session held at the Supreme Court complex in Abuja in honour of retiring Justice John Fabiyi, who attained the mandatory retirement age of 70 on Wednesday.

“We apologise on behalf of our colleagues who have been criticising this court in the media. We have written letters to the lawyers concerned to say it is unacceptable,” Alegeh said while ending his address at the occasion.

Some prominent Senior Advocates of Nigeria, including Prof. Itse Sagay, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo and Mr. Femi Falana, as well as another Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Jiti Ogunye, had led the debate on the ruling of the Supreme Court granting an order of stay of proceedings of Saraki’s trial before the CCT, describing the apex court’s ruling as illegal.

They faulted the ruling of the Supreme Court panel, which was led by retiring Justice Fabiyi, on the grounds that it contravened the provisions of sections 306 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which abolished granting an order of stay of proceedings in criminal matters.

Bukola Saraki

In their reaction to the apology tendered on their behalf by the NBA president, Sagay, Falana and Ogunye, said the apology was not for them as they had done nothing wrong to the Supreme Court.

Sagay said, “I have not got any letter from him. I don’t know what he himself has done. Definitely, I have not done anything for which to apologise. Again, I don’t want to be unfair to him, since you are reporting it.

“If he actually said he apologised on my behalf, I’m saying that may be he is making a mistake, he is apologising on behalf of himself. I have done nothing for him to apologise on my behalf.”

Also, Falana expressed surprise at the apology tendered on behalf of the lawyers by Alegeh, saying it was baseless.

He said, “I am flabbergasted to learn that the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Austin Alegeh, SAN, has apologised on behalf of those of us who have had cause to criticise the ruling of the Supreme Court on stay of proceedings. There was no basis whatsoever for the apology. I never offended the Supreme Court or any of its individual members for whom I have my profound respect.

“Instead of bellyaching over this matter, Mr. Aleghe ought to have tendered the apology on behalf of his friends who recently walked out of the Code of Conduct Tribunal after they had openly accused its members of engaging in “judicial rascality” for rightly dismissing the illegal application for the indefinite suspension of the trial of the defendant in the case of FRN v Dr. Bukola Saraki. Even though he is not a member of the Disciplinary Committee of the legal profession, Mr. Aleghe gave them a clean bill of health.

“Mr. Alegeh has never written any letter to me, either as the President of the NBA or in his personal capacity. If he eventually does I shall let him realise that in criticising the revered members of the Supreme Court I drew inspiration from the epochal words of Fabiyi J.C.A. (as he then was) in the case of   Ekwenugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) 6 NWLR (PT 708) 171 where his lordship observed inter alia:

“Nigerian judges do not operate in utopia. We operate in Nigeria. And no Nigerian judge can rightly claim he has not heard that Transparency International rates our nation-state as the most corrupt in the whole universe in the year 2000. This is ear-aching.”

Also, Ogunye described Alegeh’s apology as rather unfortunate.

He said, “The apology credited to the NBA president on this matter is rather unfortunate in so far as I am one of the lawyers that commented on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Saraki and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“I want to believe that he didn’t have me in mind. Maybe he was talking about other lawyers and if he did have me in mind, the apology is for him and not me. And if I knew the other persons too well, I will also say that that the apology will not apply to them.”

Meanwhile, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim, who spoke on behalf of the Body of SANs at the valedictory court session, charged judges to report lawyers who tried to unduly influence them to appropriate authorities, saying such erring lawyers would be kicked out of the legal profession.

He said the body rejected any plan for the establishment of special courts to try corruption cases, saying that it would not solve the problems unless “judges who know the law and are conscious of their public functions” were in place.

Abdullahi said, “There are stories of counsel going around trying to influence the bench. I think the time has come for the judiciary and its members to stand up and be counted in the fight against corruption.

“I do not see any reason why judges should not report to the appropriate body any lawyer who goes beyond his professional calling and engages in acts calculated at perverting the course of justice.

“I am sure that the bar and the entire legal profession will not hesitate to show the counsel, irrespective of status, the way out.”

“I do not believe that we need any special court for corruption cases. The existing courts can effectively handle corruption trials if there is compliance with the practice direction made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria in 2013 and the new Administration of Justice Act.”

“One is tempted to ask, if we create a special court for the purpose of trial of corruption cases, are we going to create special judges, special investigators, special prosecutors and special defence lawyers? Will those sets of investigators, prosecutors, judges, and defence lawyers be from the moon? Does delay in criminal case only?” he asked.

Saraki: Sagay, Falana reject NBA’s apology to Supreme Court

Kogi State Constitutional Logjam: Why The Supreme Court Cannot Intervene

By Inibehe Effiong

The Supreme Court of Nigeria does not have original advisory jurisdiction. The apex court only have original and appellate jurisdiction on certain specified matters. See Sections 232 and 233 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

Idris Wada

There is no constitutional support for the proposition and agitation by a section of the public that the Attorney General of the Federation should approach the Supreme Court for advise on how to resolve the constitutional logjam arising from the death of the Kogi State gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Prince Abubakar Audu. It is a recondite reasoning that cannot stand legal test.

The Supreme Court cannot assume original jurisdiction on a matter that does not fall within the very limited scope of Section 232 of the Constitution. By original jurisdiction, I mean the power of a court to hear and determine a matter or dispute directly, as a court of first instance.

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria under Section 232 of the Constitution is limited to:

(1) dispute between the Federal Government and a State of the federation;

(2) dispute between States of the federation;

By virtue of Section 1 of the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act, 2002 the Supreme Court of Nigeria can also sit as a court of first instance in respect of disputes between:

(a)    the National Assembly and the President;

(b)    the National Assembly and any State House of Assembly; and

(c)    the National Assembly and any State of the Federation,

No case or dispute, no matter how urgent and fundamental, can be taken to the Supreme Court directly if it does not fall under any of the five categories of disputes enumerated above. Every other cases can only be entertained by the apex court as an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal by invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 233 of the Constitution.

There are litany of decisions on the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The following cases are instructive on the point: Attorney General of the Federation v. Attorney General of Abia State & 35 Ors (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689 and Attorney General of Bendel State v. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors. ( 1983) ANLR 208.

This is one aspect of our law that cannot be negotiated.

The proper court for interested parties, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to approach over the Kogi State constitutional logjam is the Federal High Court. See Section 251 (1) (q) of the Constitution.

Given the fundamental nature of the issues arising from the death of Mr. Audu and the controversy surrounding it, it may be necessary to invoke the referral/reference clause under Section 295 of the Constitution.

Section 295 of the Constitution empowers the Federal High Court to refer substantial questions of law on the Interpretation or application of the Constitution to the Court of Appeal. Where the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the question (s) referred to it from the Federal High Court involves a substantial question of law, it shall refer same to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court shall give its decision on the question.

The court in which the question arose (in this case the Federal High Court) shall dispose of the in accordance with that decision. This is the only way that the Supreme Court can give direction on the Kogi State crisis.

No person or authority in Nigeria, not even the Attorney General of the Federation, can approach the Supreme Court directly except in respect of a dispute that falls within Section 232 highlighted supra.

In the case of F.R.N v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.842)113, His Lordship, UWAIFO, J.S.C (as he then was) enunciated the position of the law on reference of substantial question of law thus:

” It is clear from those cases that there are conditions which must exist before a reference can be made under this provision. First, the question must be as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution. It is the foundation for  even contemplating making a reference: see Gamioba v. Esezi II (1961) 2 SCNLR 237; Atake v. Afejuku (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.368) 379.

“Second, such a question must arise in the proceedings in connection with an issue before the court making the reference: see Olawoyin v. Commissioner of Police (No. 2) (1961) 2 SCNLR 278, (1961) 1 All NLR 203; Bamaiyi v. A.-G., Federation (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt.727) 468, (2001) 7 SC (Pt.11) 62. Third, the matter for reference must involve a substantial question of law. The court making the reference must decide the substantiality of the question: see African Newspapers of Nigeria Ltd. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.6) 137.

“There might be instances where the question presents no difficulty in ascertaining whether it is substantial or not. But it is useful to take as a guide what was said by the Federal Supreme Court in Gamioba v. Esezi II (supra) at p.588 per Brett, F. J. that the question “must clearly be one on which arguments in favour of more than one interpretation might reasonably be adduced.” Fourth, the court making the reference to the higher court is not required to, and must not, give an opinion of law on the question: see Adesanya v. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112; (1981) 2 NCLR 358.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Supreme Court cannot intervene in this case. Therefore, the call made by some legal practitioners and commentators for the Attorney General of the Federation to approach the Supreme Court over the matter is legally indefensible and unnecessary.

However, the Attorney General of the Federation being the Chief Law Officer of the Federation by virtue of Section 150 of the Constitution can offer advice to the INEC on how to resolve the controversy. It should be noted that such advice is not binding on INEC.

In an earlier opinion, I had elaborately discussed the legal implications of the death of Mr. Abubakar Audu. It is now left for the APC to substitute its deceased candidate with another person. INEC should proceed with the supplementary election in the 91 outstanding polling units.

Inibehe Effiong is a Legal Practitioner.

inibehe.effiong@gmail.com

Kogi State Constitutional Logjam: Why The Supreme Court Cannot Intervene

Saraki: SANs disagree with S’Court on trial stoppage

Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria have described as illegal the order of the Supreme Court, granting an application for a stay of proceedings in the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki, who is being tried by the Code of Conduct Tribunal for false asset declaration.

The SANs contended that the concept of a stay of proceedings, which the Supreme Court granted to stop the trial of Saraki at the CCT, was abolished on May 13, 2015, when the then President Goodluck Jonathan signed the Administration of Criminal Justice Bill into law.

Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), noted that the two chambers of the National Assembly had passed the bill to modernise the nation’s criminal justice system.

“In particular, the law has abolished stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals by merging all preliminary objections with the substantive case in any criminal case instituted in a federal court in the country. The revolutionary intervention of the law was occasioned by the unending trial of politically-exposed persons in corruption cases,” Falana said in a statement on Sunday.

Falana, among other cases, cited the trial of Mohammed Abacha against the Federal Government, which was stalled for 12 years “on account of the preliminary objections raised and argued from the high court to the apex court by the defence counsel, Mr. J. B. Daudu SAN.”

The senior advocate added, “At the end of the ‘Israelite’s journey’, the Supreme Court ordered that the trial be commenced de novo at the federal capital territory high court. Having been completely frustrated in the circumstance, the Federal Government was compelled to discontinue Mr. Abacha’s corruption charge involving the theft of N664bn under the pretext that the case would be ‘amicably’ resolved!”

He equally cited the case of Major Hamza Mustapha, a former Chief Security Officer to the late military dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, who was arraigned by the Lagos State Government for the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, the wife of the acclaimed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, Chief Moshood Abiola.

He argued that lawyers for the accused also employed stay of proceedings to push the case for the lower court to the apex court, ensuring that the case was not concluded until after 13 years “on account of several preliminary objections and interlocutory appeals”.

Falana argued that granting the stay of proceedings in Saraki’s trial at the CCT by the Supreme Court on Thursday last week, had become illegal and had turned back the hand of the clock with the enactment of the AJCA by the Seventh Senate.

He said, “With the enactment of the AJCA, the suspension of criminal cases by all accused persons has been effectively stopped in Nigeria. Therefore, any judge, who orders a stay of proceedings in any criminal trial, does so illegally and is liable to be sanctioned by the National Judicial Council.

“It is unfathomable that the Supreme Court decided to return the country to the status quo ante in a rather brazen and bizarre manner. Given the ouster clause contained in section 306 of the AJCA, the Code of Conduct Tribunal ought not to have delivered its ruling in respect of the preliminary objections filed by Dr. Saraki. The ruling should have been read together with the judgment after the conclusion of the trial. It was the premature ruling of the Tribunal which led to the filing of an interlocutory appeal in the matter.

“Instead of declining jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal that has been abolished by the AJCA, the Court of Appeal ordered a suspension of the trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal to await its decision. Although the Court of Appeal eventually dismissed the appeal, the trial of the substantive case at the CCT has been further halted by the Supreme Court, which has granted another stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the interlocutory appeal filed before it by the accused person.

“However, it is sad to note that in granting the order of stay of proceedings in the case, the apex court ignored the provisions of sections 306 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. It was not a case of oversight or lack of knowledge of the existence of the AJCA on the part of the court, but a deliberate judicial decision to turn back the hand of the clock in the ongoing battle against corruption and impunity in the land. Curiously, some senior lawyers have endorsed the blatant violation of the law in the matter.

“I am disturbed that a progressive lawyer like Emeka Ngige SAN was reported to have justified the illegality of the order of stay of proceedings. No doubt, the prosecution and the defence counsel who are Senior Advocates of Nigeria cannot be exonerated in the mockery of the criminal justice system.”

Falana called for the upturning of the pronouncement of the apex court, warning that if the order was allowed to stay, every other accused person would also apply for a stay of proceedings or interlocutory injunction to frustrate their trials.

Falana added, “Therefore, the controversial ruling of the Supreme Court should not be allowed to stand because of its far-reaching implications and negative impact on the administration of criminal justice in the country. Since the ruling is binding on all other courts in line with the hallowed principle of stare decisis, the Supreme Court should take advantage of the substantive appeal in the Saraki’s case to review its position with a view to confirming the abolition of stay of proceedings by section 306 of the AJCA.

“This clarification should be made as soon as possible in line with the letter and spirit of the AJCA. Otherwise, every accused person will continue to file interlocutory appeals and proceed to ask for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of such appeals.”

He warned the Supreme Court not to dance to the tune of those he called the agents of impunity.

“The apex court is advised to distance itself from the antics of the influential agents of impunity in the legal profession who have resolved to frustrate the trial of corruption cases by filing cumbrous motions and frivolous preliminary objections designed to shield members of the ruling class from prosecution,” he said.

Reacting to Falana’s argument on the Supreme Court ruling, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said in “case law principles,” the Supreme Court decision would have been in order.

“But in the case of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and particularly with regards to the Practice Direction issued by Honourable Justice Aloma Mukthar, a retired Chief Justice of Nigeria 2014, it is obligatory that cases of corruption should not be suspended or stayed. That is the only difference; because it is a very dangerous precedence that the Supreme Court has laid down. I want to believe that they have other evidence or facts on record which would have justified their interference at this stage.

“But having regard to the various decisions on the amount of danger that stay of proceedings has brought to corruption cases in Nigeria and having regard to the mood of the nation regarding corruption, I believe it is a very dangerous precedence. And it would be latched on by so many corruption cases that will be coming forth.

“I would have preferred that the Supreme Court allowed the trial to go to conclusion because the law has provided that all preliminary objections shall be taken and decided together in the judgment of the court. For me, I would have preferred the provision of the Practice Direction which says criminal cases should be given prime importance.

“Yes the appellant has raised a lot of issues of impertinence by the lower court but the ACJA supports the tribunal, that all preliminary objections can be taken together with the judgment of the court. In other words, there ought not to be any interruption.   We have seen how the judiciary has come under the hammer; how the whole world has said that the judiciary is the one protecting corrupt public officers, particularly the politically-exposed persons. This case is one of those cases that the tribunal has taken on and they ought to have allowed it to go on.”

In his own comment, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), said though he did not have the full facts of the case before the Supreme Court, he argued that the apex court should have allowed Saraki’s trial to proceed.

He was also of the view that others might want to take the advantage of the Supreme Court decision in upcoming criminal cases.

“Justice must not only be done but must be seen to have been done. When we look at it, we lawyers can understand the position of the Supreme Court but people outside might be crying foul. And I quite agree with Mr. Falana (SAN) in view of the antecedent of criminal trials in the country. You can appeal at the end of the whole case,|” Ogunba said.

The Supreme Court had on November 12 ordered a stay of proceedings of the trial of Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal on 13 counts of false asset declaration.

The order of the Justice John Fabiyi-led five-man panel of the apex court followed a concession given by the Federal Government’s counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), for the proceedings of the tribunal to be halted if Saraki’s main appeal would be given an accelerated hearing.

It came after Saraki’s lead counsel, Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), had argued his client’s motion for stay of the CCT’s proceedings and while Jacobs was making his counter-submissions.

In a unanimous decision read by Justice Fabiyi, the apex court ordered the tribunal, which had fixed November 19 for the commencement of Saraki’s trial “to tarry awhile” pending the hearing and determination of the Senate President’s appeal.

The apex court ordered Jacobs to file his respondents’ brief in response to Saraki’s appellant’s brief served on him in court on November 12 within seven days.

Saraki: SANs disagree with S’Court on trial stoppage