INTERVIEW: Why Buhari insisted on having Amaechi, Fashola in his cabinet despite massive opposition — Itse Sagay
December 23, 2015
[img]http://media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2012/12/800x600xsagay.jpg.pagespeed.ic.hqmx7zFmbN.webp[/img]
Itse Sagay, a professor of Law, is the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption. In this interview with PREMIUM TIMES’ Ben Ezeamalu, he spoke about his committee’s assignment as well as the present and immediate past administrations’ fights against corruption.
PT: Let’s talk about the Presidential Advisory Committee of which you are chairman. How far has the committee gone with its assignment and are there any challenges so far?
Sagay: You know, obviously, that it’s not everything we do that I can say. The committee, to a certain extent, is working under a sort of protocol of low profile: do a lot behind the scenes but do not project yourself all over the place. So that means I cannot tell you everything we have done. But I’ll tell you some of the essentials.
I think the first point I need to make, that this committee is a coordinating committee. In other words, it is to coordinate the fight against corruption in the country. That process of coordination includes the following: we will liaise with all anti-corruption agencies, we will ensure that they are cooperating, rather than competing.
We will also look at what they are doing individually, to find what challenges they are having. For example the challenge of training their manpower with regards to prosecution. We are doing something about that (So many cases that have not been concluded were suspended and all that). Is it equipment? Is it finance? Or is it that there are some people within these agencies that are in fact sabotaging what the agency is doing by cooperating with the very people who are being investigated. Things like that are also happening.
Those are some of the things and, as I said, we want to create synergy between all the various anti-corruption agencies so they are working and cooperating together, supplying expertise where one lacks, supplying equipment where the other lacks. We are doing that right now.
Secondly, having asked all these questions, we then arrange to provide assistance to meet those gaps which they have. For example we are in touch with various international bodies who have given us their assurance that once we know what the agencies need, they will provide the assistance to make up for any shortcomings that they have in any of the areas like training, equipment and so on.
We have been in touch with many of them and they have really been very generous in the way they have come forward to meet us.
Then secondly, very major thing, is the reform, improvement, and application of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. So administration of criminal justice generally but with specific reference to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015.
You saw the recent explosion in the country over the Supreme Court’s decision where there was so much controversy whether the Supreme Court ought to have granted a stay regarding the Code of Conduct Tribunal operations.
So our job is to ensure that this particular law works. And the reason why it has to work is because before it the previous law was not working. You charge somebody to court for corruption, the first thing the person’s lawyer does is to file a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court, challenging the validity of the charges, and so on. And they would now compel the court to concentrate on these preliminary matters and completely forget the charges which brought them to court. And, say, if after two or three years they lose, they would appeal to the Court of Appeal. They would not say ‘Ok let us hear the case now.’ No no no. They will appeal to the Court of Appeal and knowing the mentality and the culture of the judiciary.
Once you say you appeal, the High Court is so frightened it will suspend its proceedings. And so the thing goes on to the Court of Appeal. And they go through the same rigmarole, two-three years, court rules that the lower court has jurisdiction. They appeal to the Supreme Court. And that goes through another two-three years rigmarole. So by the time they finally say the court has jurisdiction we are talking of 10-12 years. By the time you come back to the High Court to actually hear the case, witnesses have died, retired, the investigating police officer is retired, he’s no longer there. Those who are familiar with the case in the ministry have become judges. So the case dies a natural death and they create what we call ‘prosecution fatigue.’ That’s what used to be.
Now under this Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, all these problems have been solved. That Act says there must be no adjournment, adjournment is prohibited. Once the case starts, it has to go on from day to day till it’s concluded. There are provisions where there is an extreme need for an adjournment, the judge uses his discretion to grant two weeks, 14 days. And this can be done five times during the life of the case, after that the judge doesn’t have the competence, the case must go on till the end. That’s number one.
Number two, let’s go over what I said just now, somebody brings a preliminary objection, he attacks the jurisdiction of the court, he says the charge is not properly drawn up, it’s faulty and so on, therefore everything needs to be struck out. Or even brings an action that his client should be discharged, that the charge be quashed. Now, this new Act says if anything like that comes, the court should entertain it, but entertain it together with the substantive issue. So if you bring a preliminary objection now under the new law, the court will listen to you. You argue, you give all your reasons why the court has no jurisdiction, the court will be taking down notes. After you finish all that the court will say ‘fine’ and put it aside ‘I’ll rule on it.’ Now let’s go to the main case. They will then hear the corruption case which would have been postponed until after the Supreme Court, they now hear it to the full. After that the judge will now give a date and come, give judgment on preliminary objection, give judgment on substantive case. Do you see the improvement? You do not have to journey to the Supreme Court and back. Everything is taken together. So if the judge, having heard both the preliminary objection and the substantive corruption case, he will take the preliminary objection first naturally…
PT: (Cuts in) If the judge hears the preliminary objection and delivers judgment…
Sagay: He won’t deliver judgment.
PT: As in, after he heard all the cases. And delivers judgment and it turns out he didn’t have the jurisdiction in the first place to entertain the suit. Does he still have the competence to rule on the substantive case?
Sagay: That’s what I was going to tell you. He gives judgment, he agrees he has no jurisdiction. Then he will say, ‘supposing I’m wrong in saying so, this is the judgment I would have delivered in the corruption case.’ He will still send the man to prison even though he says ‘I have no jurisdiction, but in case I have, I’m sending you to five years imprisonment.’ Case goes on, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will now look at the two. The Supreme Court may agree with him and say ‘oh, she has no jurisdiction, I uphold her. But I will also look at the substantive matter. If I had jurisdiction, you’d have gone to prison for five years.’ Supreme Court may end up saying yes they have jurisdiction therefore we adopt the jurisdiction and you are going for the five years. Do you see the difference? It’s a dramatic difference. It’s a revolution. So within nine months the case is heard, 18 months it’s finished in the Court of Appeal, in another two years it’s finished in the Supreme Court and you know your fate. No going up and down, the two are taken together. That is the new law.
That’s not all, the new law also says that, previously if you are hearing a case and you are promoted to a higher court, you just drop the case you are hearing, a new judge is now brought to hear it from the beginning, no matter how far you’ve gone. We have a very bad case recently of Erastus Akingbola of Intercontinental Bank. The case was heard from beginning to end, the judge gave a date to deliver judgment, then we don’t know up till today whether this was a plan, they just promoted him to the Appeal Court. The case is back. And since then it has gone through three or four judges, no head no tail. That is gone forever. Once a judge is assigned to a case, even if he’s promoted to the Supreme Court, he must finish it, under this new law.
So our duty as the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption is to ensure that all courts keep strictly to these changes and not go back to the old bad ways. Because many of them have the tendency of going back to the old bad ways. Either because they are ignorant. Either because they don’t appreciate the significance of the new laws or because they are corrupt. So our job is to follow up every case to make sure that there is no falling back. That no judge is granting unnecessary adjournment. That no judge is staying any action.
Another provision of the new law is that if you appeal any ruling of the court, the court will continue hearing the case regardless of the appeal.
My committee is mandated to ensure that all these changes are maintained and sustained and applied unfailingly. 2 Likes |
