Cacophonies over the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Stay

CACOPHONIES OVER THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON STAY

A five-man panel of Justices of the apex court led by Hon. Justice John Fabiyi on 12 November delivered a ruling on whether or not the proceedings of the criminal charge against the Senate President, Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal be stayed pending the appeal before it. Whereas, the extant position of the law on stay of proceedings in criminal matter as in Section 306 of the newly enacted Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2015 (hereinafter, the Act) is to the effect that “Application for stay of proceedings in respect of criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained”. Howbeit, the Supreme 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. This ruling has thus generated a lot of cacophonies, with due respect, both from schooled and unschooled attackers.
Before I made up my mind to put this across, there were a lot of debates that went on within my sole mind. While one side said, look you don’t have to write, whatever you say will not change the attackers’ minds. Of what use will it then be? The other said, write but await attacks, too. One said, everyone is entitled to his view and opinion. Why don’t you let the sleeping dogs lie and bother yourself not? The other said, if you write, is it not how it appears to you? Write, for people write or speak on how it appears to individual. In the midst of this battle of exchange of words as it happens in the real world and in my mind, I made up my mind afterwards to write whether it is for better or for worse, useful or of no use, I just have to.
Fine, the attackers made their good points to which I concur too. The general intendment of the statute, as the attackers opined and I agree and do respect, is to accelerate criminal administration in this country. To “arrest” the situation of long years of motions without a movement in criminal matters especially on corrupt practices and financial crimes in this country. Therefore, the apex court’s ruling in disregard of this saving provision has ultimately come to kill the new geese from which we expect some golden eggs. And that, bad precedent is being set up by the court which should allow the rule of law to prevail in its reasoning and ruling. Therefore, the attackers see the ruling as the rule of individual which as Aristotle posited, is the worst of the act of beast.
Be that as it may, let us take a close look at something peculiar to this case and ruling. Clearly enough, the ruling points out that counsel on both sides show their seriousness, to wit, readiness in the prosecution and defence of the case and also that there was a concession given by the Federal Government’s counsel, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) on the issue of stay. It follows therefore that the intendment of the provision for speedy dispensation is being guaranteed and assured. The ruling was hinged also on this. And, that the ruling was more or less a consent judgment with the concession of parties. In actual sense, the supposed error on the appeal per se is that of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Yet another close look, under the instant law, that is, Section 396 of the Act, the Tribunal should not have given its ruling which warranted the interlocutory appeal ab initio. This is so because, the section entertains interlocutory application or preliminary objection but a trial court is mandated to reserve ruling thereon till the final judgment is given in which case the Tribunal would not have ruled on the objection filed by the defence as it did in the first place. If it has reserved it ruling till final judgment as the law prescribed, there would not have been an appeal neither any consequential application for stay of proceedings. Although this error ought to have been corrected, with due respect, by the appeal court by declaring the ruling premature and therefore void in the eye of the instant law. However, it is not yet time to lay the wreath for the supposedly strangulated provision until the final judgement we await from the Supreme Court.
Besides, let us look at the letter also. The provision in controversy as earlier cited state that “the court” shall no longer entertained application for stay of proceedings in respect of criminal matter before it. The question of the court this law actually makes reference to needs to be examined. Reading Section 494, the Interpretation Section of the Act, it says “in this Act, “court” includes the Federal High Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, and Federal Capital Territory Area Courts provided by legal practitioners”. In rules of interpretation which have been umpteen times set out and applied by the courts, statutes mentioning a group or generis of things or items are interpreted strictly especially where the word “include” is employed, to include items of the same generic and nothing more. A close look at this interpretation of the word “Court” by the statute itself shows a reference to courts before which criminal matters are commenced. The Supreme Court, by the proviso to the provision of section 232 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As amended) does not have and cannot by any law be conferred with original jurisdiction in criminal matters. Thus the apex court’s ruling for stay could be seen as act done justifiably since it is not a court that can be included in the generics of courts referred to and interpreted by the Act.
I cannot see with all the above, why the ruling with its peculiarities and extenuating circumstances surrounding it could be construed to impulse any defence lawyer to put it on as goggle of precedence and approach a trial court with an application for stay or for a trial court to be compelled to answer same in the name of the judicial precedent. I am afraid, that will make great news. Law in books are actually not law that is but until it is tested with the instrumentality of judicial evaluation, interpretation and use which I think the apex court has done in this case. I have no reservation for corrupt leaders in this country or inclination to corruption. But I think the purpose of the law is served here for the fact that the court ordered the prosecution to file its brief within seven days for accelerated hearing. This I think is enough. After all, law is made for man and not man for law.

Olajide Adewale, Legal Practitioner (Lagos) 08053779662

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });