How ACJA practice direction improves adjudication

The Chief Judge (CJ) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Justice Ishaq Bello, in signing the Practice Direction for the Administrative for Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has said it will not only help in the implementation of the Act but also ensure more efficiency in prosecution and investigation. The CJ said the […]

The Chief Judge (CJ) of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Justice Ishaq Bello, in signing the Practice Direction for the Administrative for Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) has said it will not only help in the implementation of the Act but also ensure more efficiency in prosecution and investigation.

The CJ said the practice direction would go further to ensure that the judiciary sets up panels as interim measures to offset backlogs of cases. This, he said, would ensure that high rate of awaiting trial inmates would soon be dealt with in the FCT.

He said the dream was to have a system of adjudication that was full of integrity.

A professor or law and member of the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee (ACJMC), Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), while speaking with our reporter said the signing of the practice direction was monumental because since it was starting from the FCT, and would soon trickle down to the states.

“This practice directions are aimed at addressing the bottlenecks, things that cause delay in the administration of criminal justice. It is going to fast-track trial of criminal cases in the FCT; not only in the FCT, it is also going to percolate down through the system. It is also going to bring about speedy decongestion of the prisons,” he said.

Akinseye-George said at present, apart from the FCT and Lagos State, seven other states had enacted the ACJA with seven or eight more in the process of domesticating the act. 

The objective of the practice direction include, ensuring efficiency and speed in the case management of criminal trials and dispensation of justice. Paragraph 10, Order 3 provides that “A trial shall be concluded within a reasonable time and completed no later than 180 days from the date of commencement.”

Another objective of the practice direction is to protect the interests and fundamental human rights of the defendant, victim, witnesses and society particularly the right to fair hearing.

It is also expected to ensure active participation of all parties to focus on matters that are genuinely in issue for trial thereby reducing delays and expenses at trials.

On the provisions of the practice direction for interlocutory applications, Akinseye-George said, “When lawyers file spurious applications; applications that have no foundation in law, judges are now empowered in criminal proceedings to award cost against the lawyer personally and such cost cannot be passed to the clients.”

He said this is specifically indicated not only in the ACJA but also in this practice direction. He added that the provisions were not intended to intimidate anyone.

 “Lawyers will enjoy it because some lawyers don’t want to delay proceedings. They want cases to move fast.

“So, there is something in this practice direction for prosecution and defence lawyers, judges, magistrates and everyone who is interested in orderly and proper dispensation of justice,” he said.

The practice direction also empowers the judge to award cost against a counsel that is absent in court on an agreed date. Paragraph 4, Order 7 states: “Where a counsel who was present in court and agreed on the next adjournment date fails to attend the hearing without good reason or sufficient notice, costs may be awarded against him.”

Also in Paragraph 8 of the same order, “Where a counsel holding brief for another counsel is unable to proceed with the business of the day, due to his unpreparedness, costs may be awarded against him personally.” 

On trial in absence, the practice direction provides that: “Where a defendant who has been granted bail, or having due notice of his trial date, fails without reasonable explanation to attend or refuses to attend court for his trial, and a summons and/or warrant as the case may be, has been issued to compel his attendance without success, the trial shall continue in his absence.”

It added that neither the seriousness of the offence nor the severity of the punishment if convicted shall be a bar to proceeding with the trial in the defendant’s absence.

The practice direction also ordered that an application for a stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal case before the court should not be entertained.