Periscoping Court Order On Release Of 150 Prison Inmates

One of the finest judgments that emanated from Rivers State Judiciary in 2020, was the one delivered, by Justice G. O. Ollor, ordering the unconditional release of 150 inmates of Port Harcourt Correctional Centre, who had spent eight to 10 years without proper arraignment or trial before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The fundamental right suit was brought by a law firm, Access to freedom international on behalf of the 150 inmates as applicants against the Commissioner of Police, Attorney General of Rivers State, Controller of Prisons, River State command and the Chief Registrar of Rivers State Judiciary as respondents.
The judge ordered the four respondents in the matter to pay the sum of N100, 000 to each of the applicants for their continued detention and breach of their fundamental rights and also ordered that 10 per cent interest per annum shall accrue to the applicants from the day of judgment till judgment sum is liquidated.
Justice Ollor held that the applicants had the locus standi to institute the case on behalf of the 150 inmates, whose fundamental rights had been breached by the respondents.
The judge held also that the single affidavit tendered on behalf of all the applicants was valid and noted there was no law that stated a separate affidavit has to be used for each of the applicants.
Justice Ollor averred that by the provisions of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure 2009, the applicant had a right to bring or institute a group or class action.
He stated that all inmates whose rights had been violated without trial had common and collective interest for the applicant to bring the application on their behalf.
The judge discountenanced all arguments of the respondents as he said they were all based on technicalities and stressed the need for substantial justice to be done to all parties and held that fundamental right proceeding was sui generis unlike other matters.
The court also ordered the sum of N 400, 000 against the respondents.
Justice Ollor’s judgment is no doubt a landmark judgment even though, it is subject to appeal. Even when a lay man looks at the circumstances of the case and the reason for the judgment, he will realise that justice has been served.
Criminal law regulates behaviour within the society; it seeks to prevent all forms of misbehaviour that are detrimental to society. It does so by providing for imposition of punishment.
However, the judges have grave responsibilities to exercise their powers in a completely fair and just manner. The fate of the fellow human beings lies in their hands.
If they make wrong decisions innocent persons will suffer unfairly or guilty persons will unjustly escape punishment. That is why judges are minded to act scrupulously as impartial adjudicators.
Judges are mindful that they must refrain from doing anything that could create the impression that they are biased or partisan in their approach.
Most importantly, in Musindo 1997 (1) ZLR 395 (H), the court stated thus,” those who are charged with the responsibility of decision making often conceal their irritation with incompetent or unprepared lawyers with idle submissions or ignoble stance.
But judges owe it to their self esteem, to the dignity of their office; to the credibility of the legal system and most of all, to those who attend their judgment, to comport themselves in such a way as persuades all before them that a fair hearing was afforded and an honest and considered decision was handed down. Audience that is fairly given to both contending parties is most likely to result in decision that not only commends itself as even handed but also just. An appearance of disfavour conversely, is calculated in a decision that fails to command confidence and which is most likely to be wrong.”
The fact that those 150 inmates of Port Harcourt correction centre have been in custody for eight years and above without arrangement or trial is a big smear on our justice system.
Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended states thus;
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.”
In line with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person, the respondents in this matter have breached the rights of the 150 inmates.
Also, Section 169 of Administration of criminal Justice Law of River State, No. 7 of 2015 states; “A Defendant charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years, shall on application to court be released on bail except in the following circumstances….”
The applicants in the fundamental rights matter were neither granted bail nor prosecuted. They were just left in the prison without trial.
Pathetically some of them would have served out their terms of imprisonment if they were tried, convicted and sentenced. The innocent ones would have suffered unjustly for those numbers of years. That is why Justice Ollor’s judgment must be appreciated.
The compensation of N100, 000 each granted the 150 applicants against the respondents, though paltry, serves as a wake-up call to all those in charge of criminal justice administration in the state. The rare courage and boldness displayed by Justice Ollor in the judgment deserves commendation. It has rekindled hope for the 150 inmates who had hitherto been frustrated in Port Harcourt Maximum Security Prison now renamed correctional centre.
As one commends Justice Ollor on his bold interpretation of the law in a Nigerian system where corruption has become an idol, one cannot forget in a hurry the law firm, Access to Justice International that instituted the matter.
It is interesting to note that this matter may have been done pro bono.
Consequently, the law firm must be appreciated for sponsoring the matter.
The humanism displayed by the law firm can only be appreciated by those who understand what it means to lose liberty for ten years yet there is no attempt by the state to file information for trial.
Administration of criminal justice in Rivers State has been sluggish in spite of so much touted justice reform. One slur in administration of criminal justice is what is termed, “withholding charges”.
“Withholding Charges” refers to a situation where an accused person is charged to a court without the requisite jurisdiction to try his matter merely for the purpose of the convenience rather than for propriety. The court which is not seized with jurisdiction usually declines to try the matter on the basis of jurisdiction and remands the accused person in custody until the advice of the Director of Public Prosecution is obtained. The said advice may never come so arraignment, prosecution or trial may never commence. If nothing is done by the accused person’s relatives to file application for bail in the high court he/she remains there indefinitely awaiting a trial that will never come. There is no doubt whatsoever it was the case of the 150 inmates who got judgment from Justice Ollor. As pathetic as it seems, it is the fate of those awaiting trial in Nigerian prisons across the country.
About 80 percent of criminal matters are initiated in the magistrate court and about 60 percent of the cases initiated in magistrate courts are without jurisdiction, a survey carried out by a law firm, Okoha & Co. has said.
The survey described as alarming the gravity of injustice it has occasioned in the justice system.
The trend of charging an accused person to courts without jurisdiction is a serious twist in criminal justice administration, sometimes it is maliciously done by the police to punish an accused person.
So long as “withholding charges” is not abrogated, innocent citizens will continue to suffer unjustly. For this ugly situation to end, it will be proper to charge accused persons to courts with relevant jurisdiction to try their matters.

By: Chidi Enyie