Ibrahim Muhammad, chief justice of Nigeria (CJN), says the
federal government files more charges than it can prove in court.
The CJN said this in reaction to the claim by Abubakar
Malami, attorney-general of the federation, that the judiciary is to blame for
delays in prosecuting high-profile cases.
In an interview on Channels Television’s ‘Politics Today’ on
Monday, Malami said the federal government has employed measures to ensure
speedy dispensation of cases, and that once a matter is brought before the
court, it becomes a judiciary affair.
“As far as the present administration is concerned, delay of
cases does not arise. If you are looking at it from the perspective of the
legislative framework, we are enforcing provisions of the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), as in day-in-day-out prosecution of cases,” he
said.
“You cannot, by any stretch of imagination, place blame
associated with the conclusion and determination of the case on the doorsteps
of the executive. It is exclusively a judicial affair.
“We have taken steps to provide the legislative framework.
We have taken steps in due diligence of prosecution of cases, which as a result
of multiple convictions within a span of a year, is a clear pointer that we
have indeed promised and delivered.”
However, in a statement on Tuesday, the CJN, through his
spokesperson, Isah Ahuraka, described Malami’s position as “one-sided”.
“The judiciary by its
constitutional position does not have criminal investigation unit or ‘fraud
detective squad’ to detect and investigate criminal involvement of any person,
neither does it have a garrison command to fight its cause or enforce its
orders and decisions,” the CJN said.
“More often than not, the federal government’s prosecution
sector files more charges than it can prove or provide witnesses to prove,
ostensibly at times for the prosecution to even fail.”
He said the ACJA referred to by the minister “is infected
with sores in some parts, making speeding adjudications improbable in some
instances, in addition to high volume of cases, limited number of judges, poor
infrastructure or archaic equipment”.
Muhammad added that Malami’s allegation that the judiciary
has not been transparent in its budget spending is untrue.
“Although judiciary
has refrained from joining issues all this while but to state the facts, in
line with the budget call circular and ceiling the federal government sent to
the judiciary before the commencement of the fiscal year, the judiciary
prepares its budget estimates for capital, overhead cost and personnel cost
according to the ceiling, needs and priority,” he said.
“The judiciary defends its budget before the senate and the
house of representatives committees on judiciary at the national assembly,
besides the initial vetting by the executive.
“The judiciary has an internal mechanism for budget control
and implementation. Each court and judicial body has a budget unit, the account
department, internal audit, due process unit, as well as departmental tenders
board. There is also a due process committee at the NJC and the judicial
tenders board that award contracts on expenditure above the approval limit of
the accounting officers of the courts and judicial bodies.
“These layers of control were established by the judiciary
to ensure transparency, accountability and effective budget implementation. The
type of transparency that the federal government has stressed.”
The CJN also stated that the national assembly carries out
an oversight function as empowered by sections 88 and 89 of the 1999
constitution, which also mandates it “to expose corruption, inefficiency or
waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative
competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds appropriated by
it”.
“The executive also put in place some mechanism to monitor
budget implementation and accountability in the judiciary through its organs
like the office of accountant-general of the federation and auditor-general of
the federation and other agencies where the need arises,” he said.
“Apart from the internal audit units of the judiciary, the
Federal Audit Department maintains offices in all the courts and judicial
bodies that monitor spending in the judiciary. If the federal audit raises a
query on any transaction and it is not well defended, it sends such to the
public account committees of the national assembly. Officials of the judiciary
would be invited to explain themselves.
“The question to ask is who else should the judiciary open
its account books to and who among these organs had raised exceptions which
were not defended by the third arm? The answer is none.
“One only hopes that these allegations against the judiciary by the federal government is not just a way of giving a dog a bad name so as to then hang it.”
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayAdvertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com