Hottestgistnaija.com
A Federal High Court in Abuja last Wednesday admitted some protesters who participated in the last #EndBadGovernance protest to N10m bail each with sureties who must have landed property in the FCT. The bail conditions have remained a subject of controversy. Some are arguing that it is akin to giving with one hand and collecting same back with the other hand. How do you react to this, Sir?
My response is clear, this is simply a matter of the court exercising its discretionary power to grant bail to accused individuals. It should not be controversial, except for those unfamiliar with our laws.
The primary aim of bail is to ensure the accused appears for trial. This is the most crucial criterion for granting bail, with all other considerations dependent on the accused’s availability.
The nature and severity of the offense are also significant; generally, more serious offenses carry a greater risk of the accused fleeing. For instance, someone charged with a capital offense may be more likely to abscond than someone charged with a minor offense like affray.
Nevertheless, there are cases where bail may be denied even for less serious crimes, as seen in *DOKUBO-ASARI v. F.R.N* and *R v. JAMAL*.
The trial judge has discretion in deciding whether to grant bail, and this must be exercised judiciously, based solely on evidence presented, rather than instinct or unfounded assumptions. The prosecution is typically best suited to advise the court on the likelihood of flight, as noted in *OMODARA v. STATE*.
Bail is a constitutional right with a contractual nature. Granting bail does not release the accused from the criminal process but provides temporary freedom with the obligation to appear for trial at a designated time. The contractual nature of bail is outlined in Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that individuals execute a bond before being released. This is reinforced by cases such as *LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICE v. ABIODUN* and *SULEMAN v. C.O.P, PLATEAU STATE*.
In light of the gravity of the charges, specifically treason, the court will consider conditions that ensure the defendants remain present throughout the proceedings.
Now that the protesters are charged with a more serious offense like treason, the situation takes on a different gravity. However, it’s crucial to ensure that the charges are legitimate and not merely a means to silence dissent.
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of treasonous acts and In such cases, the court should prioritize fairness, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law, ensuring that the accused receive a just trial. The distinction between peaceful protest and treasonous acts must be clearly defined to prevent misuse of power.
The plan by the Federal Government to block presidential pardon for convicted corrupt politicians through constitutional amendment is generating controversy. Okocha, SAN is arguing that the idea makes no sense on the account that convicts of more serious crimes like murder, kidnapping could still enjoy the privilege. What is your view about this, sir?
The proposed constitutional amendment to block presidential pardons for corrupt politicians as proposed by the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, although laudable but with respect raises critical questions about justice and equity. Chief C. J Okocha, SAN’s argument, I must say points to a key inconsistency in the proposal: that is, if the government restricts pardons only for corruption, it implies that corruption is a lesser crime compared to serious offenses like murder or kidnapping.
From my humble view, as the two legal juggernauts are some of our best in the profession, I beg to submit that if certain crimes can receive pardons, it’s fair to apply the same standards universally. Limiting pardons to corrupt politicians may be seen as selective justice and we will be left to contend with the backlash of fundamentals of Equity in Justice.
How also are we to defend the issues of our Public Trust whereas perception of fairness in the legal system are vital. Such an amendment could further undermine public trust if it appears the government prioritizes political motives over consistent justice.
I must add this, fighting corruption is imperative and addressing corruption requires strengthening the judicial system and ensuring accountability, rather than simply blocking pardons. Comprehensive reforms could more effectively deter corruption.
In summary, while the amendment aims to combat corruption, its implementation may have broader implications for justice and equality. A more integrated approach to tackling corruption and ensuring fairness in the judicial system is essential.
281 inmates escaped from Maiduguri correctional center in Borno State recently following severe flooding that damaged both private and public facilities in the state. Only 7 were recaptured. Similar thing happened in Suleja prisons recently after a heavy downpour that destroyed the perimeter fence of the facility enabling 119 inmates to escape with a negligible percentage of the escapees recaptured. How do you react to this trend, sir?
The recent escapes from correctional facilities in Nigeria reveal a grave concern regarding the security and infrastructure of these institutions. The severe flooding that precipitated these incidents highlights the imperative for enhanced disaster preparedness and response strategies, particularly in regions susceptible to natural calamities.
It is essential, however, not to overlook the commendable efforts of the Minister of Interior, Hon. Olubunmi Tunji Ojo who has shown unwavering dedication to his country by passionately introducing new reforms to address issues in the correctional services and other areas of concerns.
Now to you question, In light of these security breaches caused by natural disasters, it is imperative that correctional facilities are either designed or retrofitted to endure extreme weather conditions. This entails fortifying perimeter fences and ensuring that critical infrastructure is safeguarded from flooding.
Moreover, authorities must develop comprehensive emergency response plans, incorporating evacuation protocols and secure lockdown procedures during such disasters.
Enhancing security measures at correctional facilities is of paramount importance. This includes bolstering surveillance and staffing to prevent escapes during crises. Additionally, collaboration between local governments, disaster management agencies, and correctional services is essential to improve overall safety and responsiveness.
I also advocate for the implementation of improved strategies for the recapture of escapees, which should include community engagement and the deployment of technology for tracking and locating individuals who have fled.
By addressing these pressing issues, we can mitigate the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future, thereby ensuring that correctional facilities are resilient against both natural disasters and security challenges.
The recent appointment of Justice Kekere-Ekun with her being sworn in ahead of her confirmation had generated hot debate in the legal profession. Former Cross River governor, among others, had said her swearing in before confirmation was illegal while others said it was in order. As a constitutional lawyer, what is your perspective on this, sir?
It is evidently clear that the assertions proffered by Mr. Donald Duke, the former Governor of Cross River State, regarding the swearing-in of Justice Kekere-Ekun as Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria—prior to her confirmation—exhibit a profoundly disturbing misunderstanding of the legal framework governing such appointments. One must critically assess how someone can maintain such a political stance with misplaced confidence in his interpretation of the law under these circumstances.
To commence, Section 231(1) of the 1999 Constitution states: “The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, subject to confirmation of such appointment by the Senate.” This provision empowers the President to appoint an acting Chief Justice when the office is vacant or when the incumbent is incapacitated.
Moreover, Section 231(4) explicitly delineates that until a new Chief Justice has been confirmed and has assumed office, the President is authorised to appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to fulfil these functions in an acting capacity. Therefore, the swearing-in of Justice Kekere-Ekun is not merely permissible; it is essential for the uninterrupted continuity of judicial leadership.
Furthermore, the assertion that her swearing-in is illegal fundamentally disregards the constitutional provisions that permit such actions during periods of vacancy. While the confirmation process by the Senate is undeniably vital, it does not preclude the President from appointing an acting Chief Justice in the interim. This appointment is temporary, lasting a maximum of three months, as elucidated by Senator Adeniyi Adegbonmire, a distinguished Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, who dismissed Mr. Duke’s position, affirming, “An acting CJN can only act for three months.” Thus, Mr. Duke’s claim of a fundamental infringement of the Constitution is entirely unfounded.
Moreover, to insist on delaying the swearing-in until confirmation could engender a significant void in judicial leadership, which would be detrimental to the effective functioning of the judiciary. The Senate’s role is to confirm appointments; any legitimate concerns regarding an appointee should be addressed during the confirmation process, rather than permitting the judiciary to function without leadership. The office of Chief Justice of Nigeria is integral to our democratic governance.
I assert, without equivocation, that the President’s swearing-in of the Acting Chief Justice is constitutionally sound. Additionally, the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Fagbemi, SAN is, beyond doubt, one of the most erudite legal minds in the nation. It is disconcerting that some individuals, who cannot be considered a knowledgeable authority on matters of law and constitutionalism, would choose to undermine such a noble office with their jejune arguments.
In conclusion, it is imperative to engage with the legal framework in a thoughtful and precise manner. Such comments comments, rather than enriching the discourse, reveal a regrettable lack of understanding of the constitutional provisions governing such appointments. It is essential for public figures, particularly those with legal backgrounds, to ensure that their statements reflect a comprehensive grasp of the legal principles at hand.
