By Chris Momoh

Combating corruption in Nigeria has been an uphill task. While many believe that the anti-graft war will remain rudderless until there is a strong commitment from the highest level of government, others argue that the courts have been the greatest cog in the wheel of the anti-graft war.

Corruption cases litter our courts. Former governors who are having their day in our courts include Ayo Fayose (Ekiti), Orji Kalu (Abia), Chimaroke Nnamani (Enugu), and Sani Ahmed (Zamfara) to name a few. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has also arraigned some former bank chiefs for alleged financial crimes.

Foremost lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) is among those who are worried at the slow pace of prosecution of these cases. He said recently that “the Nigerian people have justifiably blamed lawyers and judges for frustrating the anti-graft agencies from successfully prosecuting politically exposed persons and other members of the ruling class accused of corrupt practices and money laundering.” He also listed the Akingbola Case, Ibori Case and Halliburton Scandal as three cases “which have recently questioned the commitment of the country to tackle the menace of corruption.”

I share the frustrations of the renowned human rights activist. However, it must be stated that the crises rocking the nation’s judiciary is not as simplistic as highlighted. Falana’s postulation can therefore not be the gospel truth, lest we mistake the symptom for the cause. While Ibori has had his day in court, the Halliburton Case was sensationally bungled by the prosecution.

As to the Akingbola Case, it is only fair that due process is also followed. The zeal to combat graft and financial crimes must neither becloud our sense of fairness nor open the floodgates for trampling on the rights of accused persons as enshrined in our Constitution, moreso as the Constitution holds them out as innocent until the contrary is proved. It was the eminent English jurist Blackstone, J. who warned that “It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man.” That golden rule for judges remains true today as it was hundreds of years ago.

It can be argued that the Akingbola case cannot be singled out as the only case affected by the elevation of Justice Wale Abiru to the Court of Appeal, moreso as there were other critical murder and oil subsidy cases being handled by the cerebral judge. It is also on record that the case had not been concluded, as parties were yet to address the court. Defence lawyers had also reportedly informed the court of their intention to call additional witnesses.

In fact, the problems of the Nigerian judiciary are well known even to the average person. Most Nigerian judges still write in long hand, thereby causing delays. Libraries are non-existent and infrastructural decay is the norm. Aside from delayed and shoddy investigations, prosecutors are known to be in the habit of merely waiting to file fresh charges and re-arraign suspects. Even more fundamental is the fact that Nigeria’s criminal justice system is long overdue for an overhaul. Interlocutory appeals are a major thorn in the flesh of anti-graft prosecutors.

However, it is now obvious that aside from the above challenges, what has remained an albatross for the prosecution in the trial of Nigeria’s former bank chiefs is the Court of Appeal judgement obtained by former Finbank Managing Director Okey Nwosu in appeal NO: CA/L/601/11. The court held that the Lagos High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the stealing charges preferred against the former bank chief. Similar charges against former Intercontinental Bank chief executive Erastus Akingbola now pending before Justice Lateef Akapo-Lawal of Lagos High Court are equally being challenged.

In line with the settled principle of stare decisis, it remains to be seen how lower courts determine these matters. It is recalled that the Supreme Court chided Justice Ishaq Bello of FCT High Court for ignoring this hallowed principle.

In BASHIR MOHAMMED DALHATU VS IBRAHIM SAMINU TURAKI & ORS, Justice Bello was invited to apply the Supreme Court decision in ONUOHA VS. OKAFOR & OTHERS (1983) 14 NSCC 494. He refused. Berating the judge, Ogundare, JSC said: “This to my mind is the height of judicial impertinence ever exhibited by a judge of a court lower than the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of stare decisis is fully entrenched in our jurisprudence to ensure certainty of the law. Had the learned trial judge in this case cared to read that case and the various dicta of their Lordships of this Court he would not have exhibited such crass ignorance that ran through his judgment. I think enough said on this the better.”

That our courts are poised to do justice according to the law is not in doubt. The way forward is to ensure that all facets of criminal justice administration are overhauled for judicial efficacy. Only then can we chide the courts for inefficacy if any.

Momoh is a human rights lawyer.