Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Tanko Muhammad has denied twin accusations of delaying high-profile corruption cases and executing an opaque budget brought against the Nigerian judiciary by Attorney General Abubakar Malami.
Malami had criticized about two weeks ago the lack of transparency in the judiciary’s budget.
The AGF, speaking at a Justice Sector Summit organized by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), challenged the judiciary to open up its budget allocations and spending.
The judiciary had not yet responded to the charge when, on Monday, Malami blamed it for the lengthy trial of high-profile corruption cases.
The Minister of Justice, during an interview on the prime-time program of Canals Television, ‘Política Hoy’, on Monday, affirmed that despite the legal framework established to expedite criminal proceedings, the judges continue to delay the hearing and determination of these cases. cases, particularly with regard to Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs).
Reacting to the accusation in a statement by its spokesperson on Tuesday, the CJN said that Malami’s criticism of the judiciary for delays suffered in court over high-profile corruption cases was one-sided.
“The position of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN) that the judiciary is responsible for the delays in the trial and the issuance of sentences in corruption cases involving politically exposed persons appears to be one-sided. . ”, the statement from the CJN spokesman, Ahuraka Isah.
PREMIUM TIMES had reported that Mr. Malami’s claim was only partially true, with references to instances of delays caused by the federal government or its agencies.
The report added that Mr. Malami’s comment ignored deeper systemic problems in the nation’s criminal justice system that are responsible for such delays.
While acknowledging that the judicial arm of the government was not perfect, the CJN noted that when the “political and economic conditions in which it operates are compared with its counterparts in other climates, it would be considered a prized model.”
‘FG files frivolous charges it can’t prove’
Beset by the filing of numerous count charges, the CJN said: “The Federal Government prosecution sector files more charges than it can prove or provide witnesses to prove, ostensibly sometimes so that the prosecution even fails.”
Referring to the novel Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015), which was intended to tackle Nigeria’s criminal justice system, which is advancing at a snail’s pace, the head of the Nigerian judiciary said the legislation “is infected with sores on some parties, making quick awards unlikely.”
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami. [PHOTO: Channels TV]He added: “High case volumes, limited number of judges, poor infrastructure or archaic equipment” have compounded the judiciary’s problems in quickly determining criminal cases.
Mr. Malami, in the course of his interview with Channels Television, presented a series of legislative and executive interventions aimed at resolving lengthy criminal trials.
One of the innovative provisions of the ACJA is the daily hearing of criminal cases, which addresses the delaying tactics often employed by defense attorneys in trials involving PEPs.
But Federal Superior Court Chief Justice John Tsoho said in an interview with PREMIUM TIMES last year that hearing criminal cases daily was “impracticable” given the sheer volume of cases on his docket.
Last December, Mr. Tsoho, during the court’s Legal New Year ceremony, revealed that there are more than 100,000 cases pending before the court’s 75 judges.
‘Judiciary no fraud detective squad’
The CJN also pointed to failures on the part of the executive arm of the government that contribute to the delays in the cases.
Muhammad said that the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary does not involve the detection and investigation of crimes, while referring to the serial disregard of court orders by the executive.
The CJN pointed out that the Judiciary does not have “a garrison command to fight for its cause or enforce its orders and decisions.”
Under the supervision of President Muhammadu Buhari, a large number of court rulings and orders have been blatantly disobeyed, especially those bordering on human rights violations.
The judiciary has an internal budget accountability mechanism
Addressing Mr. Malami’s challenge to the judiciary to open up the details of his budget, the CJN listed a number of internal audit mechanisms that are geared towards financial accountability.
advertisements
“The Judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and implementation,” Mr. Muhammad began.
“The Judiciary defends its budget before the Senate and the Judicial Affairs Committees of the House of Representatives in the National Assembly, in addition to the initial investigation by the Executive.
“The Judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control and execution. Each Court and judicial body has a budget unit, the accounts department, internal audit, Due Process Unit, as well as a Departmental Bidding Board”, explained the CJN.
He went on to say: “There is also a Due Process Committee in the NJC (National Council of the Judiciary) and the Judicial Bidding Board that awards contracts on expenses above the approval limit of the accountants of the Courts and judicial bodies.
“These layers of control were established by the Judiciary to guarantee transparency, accountability and effective implementation of the budget. The kind of transparency that the Federal Government has emphasized.”
The CJN also said that the National Assembly carries out the supervision of the judiciary.
“One only hopes that these complaints against the judiciary by the Federal Government are not just a way to give a dog a bad name and then hang it,” the statement concluded.