SARAKI TRIAL: FEDERAL HIGH COURT FIXES 7TH JUNE TO HEAR THE SUIT FILED BY A GROUP OF LAWYERS AGAINST FG

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed 7th June, 2016 for the hearing of the Originating Summons brought by a Group of Lawyers against the Federal Government of Nigeria over some repugnant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. It would be recalled that on the 20th of April, 2016 a group of Lawyers dragged the Federal Government to the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to declare void some repugnant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice, Act, passed into law in 2015. The suit is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/274/16. The sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act being challenged provide as follows;

Section 306 “An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the Court shall not be entertained.”
Section 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) read thus;
“Upon arraignment the trial of the defendant shall proceed from day-to-day until the conclusion of the trial”
“Where day-to-day trial is impracticable after arraignment, no party shall be entitled to more than five adjournments from arraignment to final judgment:
Provided always that the interval between each adjournment shall not exceed fourteen working days”
“Where it is impracticable to conclude a criminal proceeding after the parties have exhausted their five adjournments each, the interval between one adjournment to another shall not exceed seven days inclusive of weekends.” 

In the Originating Summons initiating the suit, the group has formulated the following question for the consideration of the Court;

"Whether the provisions of sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are not unconstitutional having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 1(1) and (3), 4(5) 6(6) (a), and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in Unongo v. Aku (1983) vol 13 NSCC; (1983) LPELR-3422(SC)?"

Against the background of the answer that may be given to the above question of law, the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs from this Honourable Court;
1. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Sections 306 and 396 (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 are in conflict with the combined provisions of sections 1(1) & (3), 4 (5), 6(6) (a), 36 (1) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT striking down and declaring void Sections 306 and 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 for being in conflict and constituting a grave affront to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 

3. ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the entire circumstances.

In their written address in support, the group argued that "The powers of the courts to grant adjournments, stay of proceedings where and when necessary and the powers to control their internal proceedings are inherent in the courts and preserved by the constitution itself and can therefore never be legislated away by an act of the National Assembly. Sections 306, 396(3), (4) and (5) are therefore void."

Citing BELLO, J.S.C. in the SUPREME COURT CASE OF UNONGO V. AKU, the group argued that, "One of the powers which has always been recognised as inherent in court has been the right to control their internal proceedings and to so conduct the same that the rights of all suitors before them may be safe-guarded in such a manner that all parties are given ample opportunity to prosecute or defend the cases for or against them without let or hindrance. The old adage that delay of justice is denial of justice has the same force as the maxim that hasty or hurried justice is also a denial of justice"

They are urging the Federal High Court to uphold their argument that "any statute which prescribes time limit within which a trial court must try and determine cases or within which an appeal court must hear and determine appeals is inconsistent with the provisions of sections 4(5) and 6(6)(b) of the Constitution and is therefore void by virtue of section 1(3) of the Constitution" They are further contending that "A provision of law mandatory in its terms, intention, and character, requiring the court in the exercise of a jurisdiction duly conferred upon it to hear or determine the cause within a fixed period from the time within which it is filed in court, or submitted to court is an unreasonable and unconstitutional invasion of judicial power and therefore void."

In casting aspersion on the legislation, the group opined that "Sections 306, 396 subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 stand today as a classic example of what constitutional law scholars call “legislative overkill”. Taking the National Assembly to the cleaners, the group claimed that "No doubt, in enacting these restricting and fettering provision in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, the National Assembly punched above its weight and crossed well-demarcated constitutional red lines. This Court now shoulders the onerous responsibility to call the Legislature to order." 
"From the conspectus of authorities so far cited and systematically analysed, there is now no difficulty in accepting the well-fortified postulation that this Court is imbued with the widest plenitude and latitude of powers to robustly rise and extricate the courts of the land from the tight box into which the National Assembly has gleefully and unconstitutionally boxed it in a rather strange encroachment into the sacred province of the judiciary".
"That day should not come when the Courts will be foisted with a situation of helplessness as to not be able to grant stay of proceedings when the occasion genuinely demands for it for the preservation of the subject-matter of the suit before them or to grant an adjournment as necessary for the prosecution or defence of a criminal charge."
The Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs is Barrister JUBRIL RUF'AU.

Justice Kolawale sitting in Court 6 of the Federal High Court has fixed 7th June for the mention of the matter and ordered that HEARING NOTICE be issued to parties.