Special courts for graft cases.
In recent weeks, fresh arguments have been made for the establishment of special courts to quicken the prosecution of corruption cases in the country.
Proponents of the special courts say that such courts have become necessary in order to expedite action on the backlog of graft cases currently pending in courts across the states for over five years now.
There are no fewer than 1,500 of such cases in which investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have been concluded.
About 75 of them are labeled high-profile political cases.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, is one of the strong advocates of special courts.
In at least two occasions, he has given reasons why special courts have become necessary for our democracy.
During a recent visit of the acting Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde, to his office, the CJN reiterated that special courts would be set up soon.
President Jonathan has also endorsed the plan.
According to the CJN, the jurisdiction to try such cases would be vested strictly on the Federal High Courts, with Federal High Courts in Lagos and Abuja serving as pilot courts.
The experimental stage is for two years after which the special courts could be set up in other states of the Federation.
In furtherance to that, more judges will be appointed to handle the backlog of cases.
But the CJN hinted that sustaining the special courts would depend largely on how proactive the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies are able to cope with the investigation aspect of the cases before actual prosecution would begin.
Indeed, the number and nature of many corruption cases today have become increasingly too much for the normal courts to handle.
At present, a good number of corruption cases involving some prominent politicians have suffered set-back in courts due to many factors, ranging from unnecessary adjournments and questionable injunctions, to some alleged compromises and outright corruption by some judicial officers in an attempt to subvert the course of justice.
In such suspicious atmosphere, justice is not only delayed, but also denied. Some former public officials charged with looting of public treasury have received just minor punishment disproportionate to the offences against them.
While special courts can help speed up the trials of such corrupt officials, our objection however is that by restricting their operations to only Abuja and Lagos, even in the early stages, this might pose some constitutional issues since some cases cannot be tried outside the jurisdiction where such offences were committed.
This may provide an escape route for the accused to buy time endlessly. These are avoidable loopholes that have hampered the prompt prosecution of corruption cases.
For the judicial process to be seen to be working effectively and efficiently, every problem that might hinder the smooth prosecution of cases should be avoided.
In this regard, in as much as the proposal for special courts is a good idea, haste should be made slowly to avoid the problems that they were intended to solve.
We advise that in such a corruption-infested environment such as ours, every measure to tackle corruption must be well-thought through before it takes effect.
Since we cannot have special courts for all crimes, special courts for corruption cases should, as the name suggests, be unique in themselves, both in the law and rules setting them up.
Also, the calibre of judges that will adjudicate the cases should be carefully selected.
Over all, to win the war against corruption requires less talk, but more action as well as clarity of purpose and commitment. It must not be rushed.
In recent weeks, fresh arguments have been made for the establishment of special courts to quicken the prosecution of corruption cases in the country.
Proponents of the special courts say that such courts have become necessary in order to expedite action on the backlog of graft cases currently pending in courts across the states for over five years now.
There are no fewer than 1,500 of such cases in which investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have been concluded.
About 75 of them are labeled high-profile political cases.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, is one of the strong advocates of special courts.
In at least two occasions, he has given reasons why special courts have become necessary for our democracy.
During a recent visit of the acting Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde, to his office, the CJN reiterated that special courts would be set up soon.
President Jonathan has also endorsed the plan.
According to the CJN, the jurisdiction to try such cases would be vested strictly on the Federal High Courts, with Federal High Courts in Lagos and Abuja serving as pilot courts.
The experimental stage is for two years after which the special courts could be set up in other states of the Federation.
In furtherance to that, more judges will be appointed to handle the backlog of cases.
But the CJN hinted that sustaining the special courts would depend largely on how proactive the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies are able to cope with the investigation aspect of the cases before actual prosecution would begin.
Indeed, the number and nature of many corruption cases today have become increasingly too much for the normal courts to handle.
At present, a good number of corruption cases involving some prominent politicians have suffered set-back in courts due to many factors, ranging from unnecessary adjournments and questionable injunctions, to some alleged compromises and outright corruption by some judicial officers in an attempt to subvert the course of justice.
In such suspicious atmosphere, justice is not only delayed, but also denied. Some former public officials charged with looting of public treasury have received just minor punishment disproportionate to the offences against them.
While special courts can help speed up the trials of such corrupt officials, our objection however is that by restricting their operations to only Abuja and Lagos, even in the early stages, this might pose some constitutional issues since some cases cannot be tried outside the jurisdiction where such offences were committed.
This may provide an escape route for the accused to buy time endlessly. These are avoidable loopholes that have hampered the prompt prosecution of corruption cases.
For the judicial process to be seen to be working effectively and efficiently, every problem that might hinder the smooth prosecution of cases should be avoided.
In this regard, in as much as the proposal for special courts is a good idea, haste should be made slowly to avoid the problems that they were intended to solve.
We advise that in such a corruption-infested environment such as ours, every measure to tackle corruption must be well-thought through before it takes effect.
Since we cannot have special courts for all crimes, special courts for corruption cases should, as the name suggests, be unique in themselves, both in the law and rules setting them up.
Also, the calibre of judges that will adjudicate the cases should be carefully selected.
Over all, to win the war against corruption requires less talk, but more action as well as clarity of purpose and commitment. It must not be rushed.
No comments:
Post a Comment