Bill Seeking Amendment To ACJA Scales Second Reading At Senate

A bill seeking to amend the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 scaled second reading at the Senate on Wednesday.
The bill also seeks to amend some sections of the Act that contradict the principles of fair hearing and court jurisdiction as provided in the Constitution as well as avert some loggerheads between the Act and the Constitution.
The bill is sponsored by Orji Kalu (APC, Abia North), who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for N7.1 billion fraud in December 2019.
He was tried alongside his company, Slok Nigeria Limited, and Udeh Udeogu, who was Director of Finance and Accounts at the Abia State Government House during Mr Kalu’s tenure as governor between 1999 and 2007.
They were accused of stealing and mismanaging funds belonging to Abia State.
Leading the debate, the lawmaker noted that the Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the country.
He said all authorities in Nigeria including the ACJA shall conform to the constitutional provision.
Section 253 of the Constitution, he explained, provides that “the Federal High Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that Court”.
And Section 273 states that “for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it under the Constitution or any law, a High Court of a State shall be duly constituted if it consist of at least one Judge of that Court.”
The Court of Appeal has held that by the provision of Section 273 of the Constitution, a simple judge sitting in the High Court is qualified and had the power to try criminal offenses, he said.
“The provisions of Sections 253 and Section 273 of the Constitution, spells out the composition of the judges of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the powers to hear and determine matters before them equally provided for by the same Constitution.
“The Constitution should be read together on provisions with establishment ,composition and jurisdiction of courts as the various High Court as Court of Appeal rules have provisions for the position of pending cases, when judges are elevated.”
The lawmaker complained that allowing a judge who is elevated to a Court of Appeal to determine cases before him, while he served as a High Court judge, will raise the issue of jurisdiction.
“It will be advisable that the Constitution be amended to expressly handle the gap created when judges are elevated to the next bench and be given the powers to conclude heard cases on elevation before moving to the next level.
“In view of the aforementioned we submit that a Constitutional amendment is the best option to take care of such lacuna. Further general observation, our judicial system recognises and applies the rule of stare decisis, meaning rules of precedent and hierarchy of courts.
“More so, courts are classified according to the Constitution and other extent laws. We should clearly demarcate or spell out the jurisdiction of the court to avoid contradiction and uncertainty.”