Addressing Undue Delays Of Graft-Related Cases

Once again, the debate over whether or not litigations concerning corruption deserve special courts has resurfaced with Nigerians voicing support for or against such preferential treatment to graft cases, as repeatedly canvassed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), recently.

This time around, the debate has been fueled by an advisory list of Nigerians in protracted corruption-related cases with the EFCC in various courts in the land, which perceived political underpinnings have further sparked counter contributions by lawyers and laymen alike.

In furtherance of the same, President of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Joseph Daudu, penultimate Sunday, blamed the protracted delays in hearing corruption-related cases on the courts and not on lawyers, variously accused of deliberately undermining government’s anti-graft efforts, by using unnecessary legal technicalities to prolong litigations.

Defending, as it were, EFCC lawyers, the NBA president was quoted as saying, “I will put the blame squarely on the door-step of courts and not the lawyers of the EFCC”, and argued that it was the duty of respective courts to have timelines for criminal matters, and more importantly, be better organised in prioritizing their daily case lists.

It is, indeed, on account of the frustration arising from such prolonged litigations, actuated, in the main, by ill-equipped courts, that the EFCC has repeatedly called for the creation of special courts to hear corruption matters or designate a few for such special matters.

Those who disagree with that request argue that Nigeria’s Criminal Code makes adequate provision for all criminal matters, and the regular courts properly instituted to superintend such legal challenges.

Even so, The Tide agrees with the NBA that not only are some of the courts over-stretched, ill-equipped and hardly properly organised for the fresh challenges we face, the regular courts ought to place timelines on pressing criminal cases.

Beyond that, The Tide believes that no injuries of very disturbing degrees would be suffered by Nigerians, if the EFCC’s request for special courts to hear corruption cases is considered. We say so because every nation addresses peculiar concerns in a manner most suited for the urgency such national malady requires.

This same understanding, in years past, gave rise to special tribunals, which at various times, tackled pressing concerns like armed robbery, election-related petitions, and even drug trafficking. In taking such steps, Nigeria did not lack regular courts to hear such cases as there had existed magistrate and high courts equipped to hear both criminal and civil litigations.

That being so, The Tide believes that designating specific courts to hear corruption cases of urgent nature would not be as injurious to our legal system as some are wont to view it.

Instead, such a measure would help enhance speedy trial of corruption cases, since unlike other regular such special courts, would not be buoyed down by other competing cases. We are aware of the constitutional constraints in creating special courts, considering the political sentiments such a process will ignite.

That is why we suggest that the judiciary of each state should, as a deliberate contribution to the anti-corruption efforts of the country, exercise the germane discretion of assigning to specific courts, all corruption-related cases brought by the EFCC against suspected looters of our treasury.

Happily, some proactive states like Rivers and a few others, are thinking along such lines, and if properly articulated, should help address the vexed issue of prolonged graft-related cases. After all, was it not said that justice delayed is justice denied?

Now, therefore, is the time to try the EFCC option of designating courts for such speedy trials and judgements, and within timeliness of reasonable kind.