Lawyers have explained that the Supreme Court’s judgment which voided the conviction of former governor of Abia State, Senator Orji Uzor Kalu of N7.6 billion allegation.
Kalu, who is the Senator representing Abia North Senatorial District under the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment by a Federal High Court in Lagos on December 5, 2019 on a 39-count allegations of money laundering to the tune of N7.6 billion during his tenure as governor between 1999 and 2007.
But Kalu’s co-defendants, Slok Nigeria Ltd and a former Director of Finance of the Abia State Government House, Jones Udeogu challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Lagos to conduct the trial after the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Idris, who was elevated to the Court of Appeal, returned to conclude the proceedings.
In the lead judgement by Justice Ejembi Eko, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) which was hinged on by the then President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa to permit Justice Mohammed Idris to return to the Federal High Court in Lagos to conclude the trial was unconstitutional.
The Section 396(7) of the ACJA provides that, “Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this subsection shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.”
Reacting, Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) said that although the ACJA was made to accelerate criminal proceedings in Nigeria, its provisions are against the constitution of Nigeria, adding that you cannot seek to correct wrong with another wrong.
“I have been among those warning that most of the provisions of the ACJA cannot stand the test of the Constitution,” he said.
“There was a case involving a Chief Magistrate in Oyo State, who was elevated to the High Court of the FCT, he came back to deliver the judgement in the Magistrate Court, and the Supreme Court set aside the judgement. So, it is not new, it has always been there in our jurisprudence,” he added.
Chris Uche (SAN) said there are a lot of anomalies in the ACJA legislation waiting for the right time to be corrected, adding that any law which is inconsistent with the constitution is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency.
“There is no way you can swear in a judge as a Justice of the Court of Appeal and he will still remain in a position to decide cases in the lower court. It is an anomaly,” he said.
Also reacting, a law lecturer, Abdul Mohammed Esq, said although the ACJA was made to accelerate criminal proceedings in Nigeria, the provision of the Constitution expressly states that a High Court shall be presided by a Judge of the High Court, adding “the judge who heard the case was no longer a High Court judge at the time he delivered the judgement.”
For his part, Hameed Jimoh Esq said the judge who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal “cannot be demoted to the level of a High Court judge from where he has risen or been elevated, which Section 396(7) of the ACJA sought to achieve.”
