AN APPRAISAL OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME UNDER THE NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY In every civilized and democratic society, the supremacy of the rule of law, the rights, safety and welfare of its citizens are held sacrosanct. In Nigeria, a democratic State, the Constitution which is supreme has empowered the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly to make laws for the protection of lives and property. These laws are meant to regulate and govern human conduct in order to maintain peace and order in the Society. The violations of these laws sometimes attract penal consequences to primarily serve as deterrence. This is where the Nigerian criminal justice system is activated to determine the gravity, truth or otherwise of such violations and administer justice when and where necessary. It follows that the Court of Law which is believed to be the last hope of the Common Man is at the centre of the fair and impartial administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. As a component of the criminal justice system, the courts are manned by judges who sit as umpires or arbiters during the trial of a person who is accused of violating the law thereby committing an offence punishable under such law. A person standing criminal trial in Nigeria is, however, presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt by credible evidence.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36 (5)] This is a Constitutional right that every Nigerian citizen standing trial is entitled to. The Courts must therefore, at all times presume innocent a person accused of the commission of an offence until he is properly arraigned, tried and rightly convicted. It follows that the principle of presumption of innocence forms the bedrock or foundation of all criminal trials in Nigeria. More so, a person standing trial for the commission of an offence is also entitled to his personal liberty. This is a right also guaranteed under the Constitution which can only be deprived in exceptional circumstances.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 35 (1) (a-f)] Though, the right to personal liberty is subject to some exceptions, it must be taken into consideration that an offender, who is presumed innocent until proved otherwise, should not be detained or his trial dragged on for an indeterminable or endless period of time. The trial of an offender within a reasonable time is a strong pillar of justice in any society. Therefore, a society where justice is delayed or frustrated by unconscionable delays only perverts justice. It is obvious that the realities of the dispensation of criminal justice in Nigeria clearly showcase this perversion of justice. With the rising rate of crime in Nigeria and the ineptitude and impunity with which criminal cases in our Courts are dispensed with, it is noted with concern, not only the outrageous number of inmates awaiting trial in prisons across the country but also the undue delays in criminal trials which have called to question the effectiveness of the Nigerian criminal justice system. It is reported that eighty (80) percent of the population of inmates in Nigerian prisons are awaiting trial, most of whom, are held for simple offences that are easily bailable. [ J. Ukwayi and Okpa, ‘Critical Assessment of Nigeria Criminal Justice System and the Perennial Problem of Awaiting Trial in Port Harcourt Maximum Prison, Rivers State.’ Global Journal of Social Sciences [2017] 167] Also many criminal trials across the country are dragged on for years until such trials become moribund with the death of the offenders in prison custody who are sometimes innocent of charges brought against them. The Nigerian Criminal Justice System is, therefore, expected to fast-track the speedy dispensation of criminal justice which is a direct mandate of the Constitutional requirement of trial within a reasonable time as envisaged by the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36(4)] from which the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) on speedy dispensation of justice draw their inspiration and root. By that provision of the Constitution, whenever a person is charged with a criminal offence he shall be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a Court or tribunal.[ Ibid ] This provision thus, clearly envisages or contemplates the commencement and conclusion of a criminal trial within a reasonable time. Therefore, any unjustifiable breach of this provision in a criminal trial is an affront to the supremacy of the Constitution which should as a consequence, result into a nullity of such a criminal trial as in other jurisdictions like Canada where the courts may stop criminal proceedings against the offender or remove restrictions on same.[ R v Jordan [2016] 1 SCR 631] Bearing in mind the provisions of Section 1(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is expected that a breach of Section 36(4) thereof without any justifiable reason(s) should be met with lethal consequences. The ready and clear implication of this requirement is that criminal trials, where the liberty or freedom of a citizen is at stake, must be conducted and concluded within a reasonable time to ensure the observance of the more fundamental right to personal liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria. The question of what amounts to reasonable time in this context has indeed been a cause of debate among many advocates for the speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria. This is because the failure of the Constitution to expressly provide for the particular number of days, weeks, months or years within which a trial must be commenced and concluded has left the door to indiscriminate delays in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria wide open to flagrant and belligerent abuses by the courts and practitioners in the criminal justice system. It is sad that in spite of the efforts of our Nigerian Legal System to curb the nemesis of unconscionable delays in criminal trials, justice delivery in Nigeria is relentlessly still marred with avoidable delays. In fact, in the very cases where the courts appeared to deprecate or chide protracted litigations, the same cases lasted for five, seven or even up to fourteen years.[ Vitalis Shima and Bem Aboho, ‘Trial Within a Reasonable Time Under Nigerian Law: A Legal Myth or Reality’ Benue State University Law Journal [2019] 360] It bugs the mind therefore that the constitutional requirement of trial within a reasonable time as a matter of fact has served no useful purpose since its enactment. It is obvious that the requirement of trial within a reasonable time under Nigerian law has become a legal fiction given the activities of all the players in the administration of criminal justice, beginning from the parties to the case, witnesses, lawyers, the courts as the arbiter as well as the government. This study is, therefore, aimed at addressing the notion of trial within a reasonable time under the Nigerian criminal justice system; projecting also the challenges rendering the realization of this legal elixir to protracted litigations or trials in our justice delivery system a figment of the imagination. 1.2STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The Criminal Justice System of a nation represents a structure through which the laws guiding the existence and order of such a society are applied and the rights of the citizens are upheld. Certain characteristics have been associated with the Criminal Justice System. They include fairness, justice, equality, effectiveness and efficiency. These characteristics spell out equity, offence-punishment proportionality, constitutionality, public order, safety and integrity among other things. Criminal justice implies ascertaining whether or not an accused is guilty of a crime and ensuring that due process is involved in the determination of guilt or innocence and the administration of punishment or compensations where appropriate. In Nigeria, however, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Nigerian criminal Justice system is an issue that apparently requires attention especially given the seemingly unchecked lawlessness that pervades the Nigeria, the phenomenon and increased rate of recidivism in the country, as in most other societies, and the general opinion and perception of justice as a mirage. Nigerian criminal justice system ought to connote an orderly system within which rights of the citizens are protected and those who err on the side of the law are prosecuted and sentenced or acquitted timeously. Thus, it would be an aberration for this same system to be characterized by ineptitude and injustice accessioned by unconscionable delays of criminal trials The situation is so pathetic that the administration of justice as a whole in Nigeria is marred with delays even in simple termination of contract and violation of fundamental human rights cases which last between three (3) to five (5) years or even more in our courts.[ Shima and Aboho (n 7) 372] It is without doubt that these kinds of unconscionable delays have pernicious consequences on the body of evidence, the parties, the witnesses, the court’s memory, et cetera. In 2018, the Court of Appeal on the need for purposive interpretation of the provisions of the innovative Administration of Criminal Justice Legislations pronounced in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Hon. Farouk M. Lawan[ [2018] LPELR I7I7 ] as follows: It is important to give a background of the state of the criminal justice system in Nigeria before the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (the ACJA). Before now, the administration of criminal justice was in a chaotic state, and the problem of incessant delay topped the list of the overall malfeasance in the system. There was undue delay in the prosecution of even the most important cases and sometimes the most serious offences. There were long and sometimes inexcusable periods of adjournments, unpreparedness or untardiness in the calling of witnesses, transfer of Prosecutors, Magistrates and Judges without effective plans for the cases they were handling and indeed poor working attitudes of the various stakeholders. It was in light of the above background that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (the ACJA) was enacted with a grand purpose in its Section 1(1) to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy administration of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the right and interests of the suspect, the defendant and the victim. It is worthy of note that the Nigerian criminal justice system has not been able to suppress or eliminate the lingering indices of delayed justice. The saying goes that ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’ It is belabouring the obvious to state therefore that this is the reality of the Nigerian Justice Delivery System. The following research questions therefore call for answers: (a)How has the constitutional requirement of trial within a reasonable time under the Nigerian Criminal Justice System been implemented over the years? (b)What are the possible causes of the delay in the realisation of criminal justice in Nigeria? (c)What are the challenges and prospects of Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015? (d)Is the speedy dispensation of criminal justice practicable or realisable given the reality of the situation in Nigeria? (e)How effective is the legal framework for the implementation of the requirement of trial within a reasonable time in Nigeria? 1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The aim of the study is to appraise or examine the requirement of trial within a reasonable time under the Nigerian Criminal Justice System. Aside this main aim the study pursues the following objectives: (a)To determine the implementation of the constitutional requirement of trial within a reasonable time under the Nigerian criminal justice system. (b)To determine the causes of delay in the realisation of criminal justice in Nigeria (c)To determine the challenges and prospects of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (d)To determine the possibility of speedy dispensation of justice in Nigeria given the present day realities. (e)To determine the effectiveness and potency of the laws for trial within a reasonable time in Nigeria 1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The nature and scope of this study is an appraisal of the requirement of trial within a reasonable time. The legal framework for trial within a reasonable time, causes of delay in the just, fair and speedy dispensation of justice as well as the challenges of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which is the principal enactment on the subject matter are also discussed. The geographical scope of study is limited to Nigeria, where the operative laws regarding the subject matter of the study have been used as well as judicial authorities upholding trial within a reasonable time and deprecating the incidents of unnecessary delays leading to protracted criminal trials. The limitations of this study have been the inadequacy of funds for wide based research; also the time frame given for the possible conclusion of the study has been short, affecting also the in-depth and critical examination of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. Concerted efforts were, however, made by the writer to source for adequate funds to finance the research. Also, the timely and successful completion of this study became a priority, making the writer to forgo other engagements to dedicate time and resources to this work. 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The essence of the requirement of trial within a reasonable time as propagated by the Constitution and other enactments is the protection of both individual and societal rights. As an individual standing trial, an offender is entitled to the right to security of person by minimizing the anxiety and stigma of criminal proceedings through the timely commencement and completion of the trial. Also, as a citizen of Nigeria, he is entitled the right to personal liberty by minimizing the effect of pre-trial custody or restrictive bail conditions as guaranteed by the Constitution.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 35] The offender further has the right to a fair trial by ensuring that the proceedings occur while evidence is still fresh and available. It is also in the interest of the public to witness the enforcement of our laws by having those who break the law tried timeously and accordingly punished when found guilty or acquitted when found otherwise. When trials are commenced and completed in time, the victims and witnesses who are members of the society believe with confidence in the Nigerian criminal justice system. It follows that timely completion of criminal trials has an important role in limiting the gap in time from the commission of the crime to the imposition of criminal sanctions. Its importance is reflected at the level of reduction of the negative effects or deprivations that the offender is exposed to in the course of criminal proceedings which itself has the character of criminal sanction. The undue delay in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria therefore affects the strength of the restorative effects of criminal sanctions by reducing it to mere retribution. This study will, therefore, be of immense significance to the courts or judges, prosecutors, the legal practitioners, the Police, the government and most importantly to prisoners awaiting trial and persons who will subsequently be standing trial for offences committed. All these will be brought to bear by ensuring that decisions of the Courts in criminal trials are reached when the facts, as presented by the parties, are still fresh in the mind and impression of the Court to avoid any miscarriage of justice that may result from loss of impression of the facts by the Courts arising from undue delays between the commencement of trial, taking of evidence and the final determination of the matter. It follows on the contrary, that the greater the interval between these stages, contrary to the requirement of trial within a reasonable time, the less likely that justice would be done to the parties. In other words, but indeed conversely, the shorter the length of time spent within a reasonable time in a criminal trial the greater the prospect that justice would be done to the parties. [ Ariori & Ors v Elemo & Ors [1983] I SC 13. See also Akpon v Iguoniguo [1978] 2 SC 115; Ekeni v misede & Ors [1976] 1 NMLR 194; Kakana & Anor. v Imonikhe [1974] 1 All NLR (Pt. l) 383] 1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study adopted the doctrinal method of research that is, the use of existing literature, ideas and theories. The subject matter of this study is, no doubt covered by Statutes, judicial authorities, and indeed literature by legal and non-legal scholars. This study has utilized primary and secondary sources for the purpose of establishing the doctrine of trial within a reasonable time in Nigeria. Primary sources used are the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), and Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 as well as judicial authorities. Reliance was also placed on secondary sources of information which include opinions expressed by legal and non-legal scholars in textbooks, journals, seminar papers, as well as unpublished works. Resort has also been made to the internet for materials for use in this work. 1.7 CHAPTERS ANALYSIS This work is divided into five chapters. Chapter one which is the introductory aspect to this study deals with the background to the study, statement of the problem, aim and objectives of the study, scope and limitations of the study, the significance of the study, research methodology and chapters analysis. This chapter captures the general overview and preface to the subject matter of the study under discourse. Chapter two to this study projects the conceptual clarifications of key concepts or terms that are pivotal to the understanding of the topic under discourse. Under this chapter also is dealt with the theoretical framework for trial within a reasonable time. Chapter three focuses on the legal and institutional frameworks for trial within a reasonable time in Nigeria. Here, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the ACJ Act 2015 and institutions like the courts, the Police, correctional centers and the National and States Houses of Assembly are discussed Chapter four underscores the Nigerian Criminal Justice System and the cause of delay in the speedy dispensation of justice as envisaged under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Also considered under this chapter are the challenges of implementation of ACJA 2015 all across Nigeria. The concluding chapter to this study is chapter five. This chapter deals with the summary of findings, recommendations, contributions to knowledge, areas for further studies and recommendations noted at the end of the study. CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME 2.1 CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS A clarification or definition of key terms that are instrumental to the understanding of this study is treated hereunder. 2.1.1 Trial Black’s Law Dictionary[ Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th edn, West Group, 2014) 1543] defines the word ‘trial’ to mean ‘a formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in an adversarial proceeding.’ The word ‘trial’ is also defined as ‘a legal process in which someone who stands accused of a crime or misdemeanor is judged in a court of law.’[ Mairi Robinson, Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (Allied Chambers Ltd, 2007) 1452] It must be noted that, the second definition limits a trial to criminal trials by adopting the words ‘… who stands accused of a crime or misdemeanor…’ The first definition on the other hand is wide enough to cover both civil and criminal trials and this study adopts it as apt. It is pertinent to note that the Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition is in tandem with judicial reasoning in Nigeria as it was held in the case of University of Ilorin v Oyalana[ [2001] FWLR (Pt. 83) 2198], that a trial is the conclusion by a competent tribunal of questions in issue in legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal. The word ‘trial’ embraces all the facts before the court, including the judgment. It suffices to state that the body conducting the trial must be one established by law such as the courts and tribunals. It was against this backdrop that the court in the case of Garba v University of Maiduguri,[ [1986] NSCC 245] held that where an alleged misconduct of a student involved a crime against the state, it is no longer a matter for internal discipline but one for a court or tribunal seized of judicial power to determine. Curiously, an investigation or inquiry in proceedings by an institution or organization on the conduct of its members is not contemplated at all when considering the meaning of trial. The word ‘trial’ also means the examination of evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction so as to determine the legal claims of parties to a case. It connotes the gamut of processes involved in a case from the commencement to the point when judgment is finally given. Judgment is the final stage of a trial. Simply put, ‘a trial is demonstration and testing before a court of the cases of the contending parties. The demonstration is by assertion of evidence and the testing is by cross-examination and arguments.’[ Durinya v Commissioner of Police [1962] NNLR 73] Certain vital issues emerge from the foregoing definition of ‘trial’ which enhance an understanding of the term itself. These include: assertion of evidence, testing of evidence, and before a court. By assertion of evidence it is meant that the trial is a place where each of the contending parties whether the prosecution or defendant (in criminal matters) or plaintiff or defendant (in civil matters) projects or establishes facts or makes submissions on points of law to place before the court the respective angles of his story or case. The parties do this by giving evidence, oral, real or documentary. This giving or placing of evidence is called evidence-in-chief because it is the main evidence of the party giving it. The testing of evidence on the other hand is done by cross-examination which simply means the asking of questions by the opposing party to test the veracity of the evidence placed before the court. Evidence could also be tested by argument where the party argues that logically or legally the evidence against him is unacceptable. It is distillable from the foregoing definitions also that a trial must be before a court, which should try to resolve all the issues of facts, law or mixed law and facts on the evidence before it. Therefore, it was held in Ikenyi v Ofene,[ [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 5) 126] that it is the duty of the court to decide between the parties on the basis of what has been tested, demonstrated, canvassed and argued before it. In performing this role, the courts are not investigators and it is not for them to ask questions except to clear ambiguity. The trial must also be in public as required by the Constitution.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 34(4) ] A trial is regarded as fair only when it is done in public. A trial is said to be in public when members of the public have access to the tribunal though not a necessity that they be present. It should be noted, however, that certain circumstances present for a closed trial, that is, a trial under closed doors and not open to the members of the public. This is so especially when a juvenile is standing trial. It follows, therefore, that the issues raised and discussed are part and parcel of the concept of trial and, taken together, present a logical, concrete and encompassing meaning or view of trial. 2.1.2 Reasonable Time By virtue of Section 35(5) of the 1999 Constitution, the expression ‘reasonable time’ in Section 35(4) of the Constitution means: a)In the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometers, a period of one day; and b)In any other case, a period of two days or such longer period as in the circumstances may be considered by the court to be reasonable. Generally, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what reasonable time is in any given case. This depends upon the circumstances of each case such as the nature and complexity of the case, the time taken by the parties to introduce evidence, adjournments demanded by legal practitioners and the availability of competent courts, the congested nature of the calendar of the courts, et cetera.[ Shima and Aboho, (n 7) 363] The courts considered this notion in the case of Yerima v Borno Native Authority,[ [1968] 1 All NLR 410, SC] where it held that the trial of the defendant was not conducted within a reasonable time when the prosecution knew all the witnesses and the case to be brought against the defendant in a murder charge but kept the defendant in detention for a whole year before arraignment. Also in the case of Ariori v Elemo,[ [1983] SCNJ 24] an action was filed in October, 1960 but came up for trial in March, 1972 and the trial went on till October, 1975. After the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge took three (3) years, and seven (7) months in writing judgment. On appeal the Supreme Court held that the trial was not conducted within reasonable time. The court further held that the expression ‘reasonable time’ used in the Constitution must be taken to mean the period of time which in the sight of justice does not wear out the parties and their witnesses and which is required to ensure that justice is not only done but appears to a reasonable person to have been done. More so, the Supreme Court had cause to define the word reasonable in the case of Okeke v The State[ [2003] 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 25 ] when it held thus: The word ‘reasonable’ in its ordinary meaning means moderate, tolerable or not excessive. What is reasonable in relation to the question whether an accused has a fair trial within a reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each particular case, including the place or country where the trial took place, the resources and infrastructures available to the appropriate organs in the country. It is, therefore, misleading to use the standard or situation of things in one or a particular country to determine the question whether trials of criminal cases in another country involve an unreasonable delay. A demand for a speedy trial which has no regard to the conditions and circumstances in this country will be unrealistic and be worse than unreasonable delay in trial itself.[ Okeke v The State (supra) 84-85] The courts have held that in observing the constitutional provision on speedy trial or trial within a reasonable time, care should be taken to avoid undue haste and undue delay, noting that, either constitutes an infraction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court incisively intoned this when it held that: “What is reasonable time within the purview of the subsection is a matter to be determined on the circumstances of every case. I may venture to generalize, however, that undue delay and undue haste cannot by any standard be said to be reasonable and consequently either constitutes an infraction of the provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution.” [ Unongo v Aku [1983] 2 SCNLR 332 at 352. The section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 referred to in this case is impari materia with, section 36(1) CFRN 1999.] The Court of Appeal was also of the opinion that the phrase ‘reasonable time’ does not mean as long as a party to a case wishes but that ‘reasonable time’ here means time that allows a party reasonable opportunity to present his case. Reasonable opportunity exists when a party has advance notice of what he is required to do in the proceedings within a particular time.’[ Sylvester v Ohiakwu [2014]5 NWLR (pt 1401) 467 at 509 CA] 2.1.3 Personal Liberty The word ‘liberty’ has become a symbol around which have clung some of the most generous human emotions. According to Salmond[ John Salmond, Jurisprudence. (11th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1957) 31] “the sphere of my legal liberty is that sphere of activity within which the law is content to leave me alone.” Also the saying goes “give me liberty or give me death.”[ John Salmond (n 26) 33] Black’s Law Dictionary[ Bryan Garner, (n 12)] defines liberty to mean freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint, especially from government. Liberty in another stretch, denotes not only freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.[ Meyer v Nebraska [1923] 626] It follows that personal liberty can be said to mean one’s freedom to do as one pleases, limited only by government’s right to regulate public health, safety, and welfare.[ Ibid ] By the provision of the Constitution of Nigeria[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 35] every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law: a)In execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty; b)By reason of his failure to comply with the order of a court or in order to secure the fulfillment of any obligation imposed upon him by law; c)For the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence; d)In the case of a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, for the purpose of his education or welfare; in the case of persons suffering from infectious or contagious disease, persons of unsound mind, persons addicted to drugs or alcohol or vagrants, for the purpose of their care or treatment or the protection of the community; e)For the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of any person into Nigeria or of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal from Nigeria of any person or the taking of proceedings relating thereto. Provided that a person who is charged with an offence and who has been detained in lawful custody awaiting trial shall not continue to be kept in such detention for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence.[ Akano v F.R.N. [2016] NWLR (pt. 1519) 17] The law, therefore, abhors the unreasonable and unconscionable deprivation of the right to personal liberty of a person which the Constitution jealously protects. Nevertheless, the right to personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of section 35(1) of the Constitution is a qualified right in the context of this particular case and by virtue of subsection 1(c) thereof which permits restriction on the liberty of the individual in the course of judicial inquiry or where a person was arrested and put under detention upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a felony. It must be noted that the nature and duration of the above detention must not exceed the years of imprisonment prescribed for the conviction of that offence, a situation which is characteristic of Nigeria’s current Criminal Justice System. It follows, therefore, that even when a person has been arrested and charged with the commission of a crime or offence, the qualifications provided for by the constitution against the right to personal liberty should not serve as a yardstick for the system to arbitrarily and deliberately rob a person of his right to personal liberty. This is one of the reasons that the law demands that a trial should be conducted and done with within reasonable time to afford the person standing accused of a crime an acquittal when found not guilty in time and on the other hand, incarceration when found guilty of the crime. It is also in consideration of a person’s right to personal liberty that the Constitution by virtue of section 35(4) thereof provides that a person arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence should be brought before a competent court of law within a reasonable time and if such person is not tried within a period of two months from the date of his arrest and detention and in the case of a person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail, such an accused person is entitled to be released conditionally or upon conditions that are reasonably necessary to ensure his appearance for trial at a later date.[ Ahmed v C.O.P. [2012] 9 NWLR (pt. 1304) 104 CA] 2.1.4 Fair Hearing Fair hearing simply means fair trial, that is, trial conducted according to all legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties to the cause.[ Ogunsanya v State [2011] 12 NWLR (pt. 1261) 401] Fair hearing is not limited to ensuring compliance with the rules of natural justice, but also the twin pillars of which are audi alterem partem meaning the other party must be heard and nemo judex in causa sua meaning never be a judge in your own cause. Fair hearing in the Nigerian context also entails compliance with the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The test for fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present in the court of the trial, whether from his observation; justice was done in the case.[ Ijeoma v State [1990] 6 NWLR (pt. 158) 567] The concept of fair hearing postulates a hearing in which the authority is fairly exercised, that is, consistent with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the concept of due process of law. Contemplated under fair hearing is the right to present evidence, to cross-examine and to have findings supported by evidence. It thus, implies that both sides be given an opportunity to present their respective cases and that each side is entitled to know what case is being made against it and given an opportunity to reply thereto. The right to fair hearing is, therefore, constitutional and fundamental hence, cannot be alienated.[ Chukwuna v F.R.N. [2011] 13 NWLR (pt. 1264) 391 SC] The question of fair hearing is not just an issue of dogma. Whether or not a party has been denied of his right to fair hearing is to be judged by the nature and circumstances surrounding a particular case. The crucial determinant is the necessity to afford the parties equal opportunity to put their case to the court before the court gives its judgment. It is, therefore, wrong and improper to approach the meaning of fair hearing by placing reliance on any prior assumption as to its technical requirement. The simple approach is to look at the totality of the proceedings before the court and then form an opinion on the subjective standards whether or not an equal opportunity has been afforded to the parties to fully ventilate their grievances before a court. The principle of fair hearing cannot be applied as if it were a technical rule based on prescribed pre-requisite.[ Zakari v Nigerian Army [2012] 5 NWLR 478 CA] In as much as the notion of speedy trial presupposes that a trial should, given the circumstances be concluded within reasonable time and judgment followed suit, it is the requirement of law that the principle of fair hearing be observed and not sacrificed on the altar of rushed or hasty trial. The courts have always been quick to intervene whenever it is shown that there was in fact a breach or denial of the right to fair hearing in any judicial proceedings on the part of any of the parties thereto. The judicial attitude in Nigeria has all along been that he who determines any matter or case without hearing both or any of the sides, though may have decided right, has not done justice in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Though the right of fair hearing applies to all judicial proceedings, it is more pronounced and fundamental in criminal proceedings in which allegations of the commission of offences are made against citizens. This is because of the constitutional presumption of innocence in favour of the persons accused of committing crimes. So where a person charged with the commission of an offence before a court of law says and shows that at any stage of the trial for the offence, he was denied the right to fair hearing, an appellate court would not hesitate but would readily intervene by declaring such trial void ab intio.[ Adeyemi v State [2011] 5 NWLR (pt. 1239) 1] It follows therefore, that in a bid to speedily dispense justice the court considered in Ekpenetu v. Ofegobi[ [2012] 15 NWLR 276] the following features of fair hearing that an affected party must be allowed to have must be observed: (a)To be present all through the proceedings to hear all the evidence against him; (b)To cross-examine or otherwise confront or contradict all the witnesses who testified against him; (c)To have read to him all the documents tendered in evidence at the hearing; (d)To have disclosed to him the nature of all relevant material evidence including documentary evidence prejudicial to him, except in recognized exceptions; (e)To know the case he has to meet at the hearing and have adequate opportunity to prepare for his defence; and (f)To give evidence himself, call witnesses, if he likes and make oral submissions either personally or through the counsel of his choosing. 2.2 CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME It will be considered hereunder, those constitutional principles that relate to the trial of an accused within reasonable time. These principles are as follows: 2.2.1 The Rule of Law The rule of law is a principle which provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36(12); Aoko v Fagbemi [1961] ANLR 400.] One of the important functions of law is that, it defines the citizens’ rights and duties. No man should be dealt with unjustly either by the government or his fellow man. This is because, by the rule of law, both the rulers and the ruled are equal before the law. So where such infringements on citizens’ rights occur, firstly, it is a clear departure from the rule of law; and secondly, it entitles the citizens free access to the judicial processes in order to ventilate their grievances[ Ibid]. The rule of law is both a deterrent and a shield. The legal system must work properly, ensuring that justice is not unduly delayed. This is because the rule of law has no delight in unduly prolonged cases, a situation whereby courts adjourn cases on the cause list for over a decade which is similar to ‘justice denied since it is delayed’. This is no rule of law and in a situation where for instance a report showing lawyers applying for prolonged adjournments, preliminary objections, and unnecessary appeals in order to stultify the judicial process does not enhance the rule of law[ Ibid ]. 2.2.2 Doctrine of Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience Natural justice has meant different things to different peoples at different times. In its widest sense, it was formerly used as a synonym for natural law. It has been used to mean that reasons must be given for decisions; that a body deciding an issue must only act on evidence of probative value. Some have asserted that the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” (which means the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty) is a principle of natural justice.[ Paul Jackson, Natural Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 1973) 63 ] Whatever the meaning of natural justice may have been, and still is to other people, the common law lawyers have used the term in a technical manner to mean that in certain circumstances decisions affecting the rights of citizens must only be reached after a fair hearing has been given to the individual concerned. In this context fair hearing requires two things, namely, ‘audi alteram partem’ (which means both parties must be heard) and ‘nemo judex causa sua’ (which means one cannot be a judge in his own case). In Nigeria, audi alteram partem is recognized as the principle which supports the ideal that the other party or both parties must be heard. This is a principle based on common sense. It goes without saying that a decision which is arrived at through the understanding of all the issues involved will be more rational. Also the Nemo judex rule, commonly referred to as the rule against bias, ensures that a judge is not partial. He should not be influenced by personal interest, for jurists and laymen alike have insisted that justice should be manifestly seen to have been done. Where the judge has interest in the subject matter, or in the party, or his own financial interest is involved, the objectivity of his decision is bound to be questionable. On equity and good conscience, in Colliery Employees Federation v Northern Colliery Proprietors Association[ [1904] AR 182 at 185], Cohen J. said “… the words equity and good conscience leave this court in my opinion, in the position that, whilst not infringing any positive law of the country, it may do that which it believes to be right and fair and honest between man and man…” Also in the Long Service Leave (Engine Driver} Award Case[ [1961] AIRL 308] Gallagher J. sitting as the Coal Industry Tribunal said that “equity and good conscience required the Tribunal to have regard to such considerations as the requirements of natural justice the taking of a realistic view, the necessity of doing what is right and fair and honest between man and man, conscientious observance of rules of fair play, the quality of being equal or fair, common fairness as opposed to meticulous insistence upon the formalities of the law.” It follows, therefore, that all trials in Nigeria and in the context of study, criminal trials, should be guided by the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. This cannot be realized if the rights of the persons standing trial are conscientiously violated through unreasonable and unnecessary delays in the administration of justice as it is the situation in Nigeria today. 2.2.3 Principle of Presumption of Innocence The administration of justice as a system tries to maintain a core balance between the search for truth, the fairness of the process and ensuring justice. To this end, one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved by credible and legal testimony beyond reasonable doubt. If there is a single principle of criminal jurisprudence that is well rooted and jealously guarded, it is that an accused person must in every case be presumed to be innocent unless and until the contrary is established. This is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s 36(5) ]. This principle forms the foundation of our criminal system, of which no departure is accommodated. In the celebrated case of Woolmington v DPP[ [1935] AC 462], it was referred to as the “golden thread” that runs throughout criminal law. It was held Per Viscount Sankey that: “Throughout the web of English Criminal Law, one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained”. At all stages of a criminal proceeding, and under all conditions, the departure from the golden thread is not permissible. It is the rule in criminal law that a prosecution has to make out their case beyond reasonable doubt, and until this is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Therefore, the unconscionable delays during trials and the practice of remand where accused persons are detained, often over long periods, in highly deplorable conditions pending their trial, waters down the import of the principle of presumption of innocence. This practice has the character of making the accused appear as if he is already suffering for the crime he has committed even before he is found guilty or acquitted[ O Amankwa, Criminal Law in the Northern States of Nigeria, (Ahmadu Bello University Press, 1986) 24]. This practice negates the value of the fundamental right to liberty of the accused person. Sanusi JCA in his dictum in the case of Musa v Commissioner of Police[ [2004] 9 NWLR (pt 879) 483] brought out the principle behind the presumption, when he stated thus: By virtue of section 36(5), 1999 Constitution, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the principle has always been that it is better for one hundred accused persons to go free than for one innocent person to be punished for an offence he did not commit, or has no hands in its committal. In the instant case, the detention of the appellants for 22 months without a charge was in breach of the presumption of innocence in their favour. CHAPTER THREE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME 3.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME It is considered under this head the principal legislation on the requirement of trial within a reasonable time. 3.1.1 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is the grundnorm and fons et origo (source and origin) of all laws. It contains copious provisions on trial within a reasonable time as well as the right to fair hearing. By section 34(4) and (5) thereof, whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal. Furthermore, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. The Constitution also provides the measuring rod for all laws.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 1(2)] It renders null and void any law that is inconsistent with its provisions to the extent of the inconsistency.[ Ibid, s 1(3)] It follows that all criminal laws in Nigeria must satisfy this test for them to be valid. The Constitution has provided the National Assembly with the powers to make laws for the regulation of the affairs, activities and conduct of all persons within Nigeria.[ Ibid, s 4] This includes the power to make penal laws as well as criminal procedural laws like the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. The Courts have also been vested with the powers via the Constitution to preside over trials of an offender who has been alleged to have committed an offence.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 6] The courts have been empowered to pronounce punishment if found guilty of such allegations as provided for in the penal laws spelling out the punishment for the offence so charged, tried and convicted of. From the foregoing it will be observed that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has, though skeletally, made provisions for the trial of an offender, and as the requirement of trial within a reasonable time which is the focus of the study. 3.1.2 Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 was enacted to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interest of the suspect, the defendant and the victim.[ Shima and Aboho (n 7) 378] The speedy dispensation of justice which is the hallmark of this work has been projected by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act through a number of its provisions. These provisions will therefore be considered hereunder. (a)Hearing From Day to Day By section 396 (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 upon arraignment the trial of the Defendant may proceed from day to day on working days until the conclusion of the trial. This may appear on the surface to be a significant milestone but with the use of the word ‘may’, of which it can only be the word that can be used in this context and not the word ‘shall’ taking into consideration the vagaries of the trial proceedings in the Courts, this provision becomes merely superfluous and unnecessary. This is so because even before the coming into effect of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 criminal trials proceeded on adjourned dates subject to the convenience of the Court. Rather than a merely superfluous provision that brings nothing new to the table, the new law should have made provisions limiting the duration of every criminal trial, for example to one year upon arraignment on information or six months for summary trials. This would have given more practical effect to the purpose and key objectives of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act than the present mere decorative and superfluous provision which by the use of the word ’may’ made it entirely discretionary and thereby subjecting criminal trials to the same old ways in the courts of adjournment and adjournments without end. However, by section 396 (4) - (5) of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, adjournments have been pegged at not more than five adjournments at an interval of fourteen working days and upon exhaustion, adjournments shall be at an interval of seven days including weekends. Now, the use of the word “may” which denotes a discretion as against the word ‘shall’ appears deliberate since it is practically impossible to conduct trial from day to day in view of the volume of work before the Court. However, this provision is to say the least a commendable effort by the framers of the Act towards the realization of the objective of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. (b)Interlocutory Appeals and Stay of Proceedings By section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 it is provided that subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an application for stay of proceedings in respect of any criminal matter brought before the court shall not be entertained until judgment is delivered. This is a laudable provision as it is a conscious effort at fast tracking criminal trials in Nigeria, which is one of the key elements of the objectives of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. The intendment of the framers of the law would appear to be to bring to a deserved end the era of prolonged criminal trials on account of pending interlocutory appeals. While the right of appeal against interlocutory decisions of the High Court to the Court of Appeal still avails the parties, it will neither stall nor affect the continued trial of the case to conclusion even while the interlocutory appeal is pending. However, it should be crucially noted that, this provision does not and cannot derogate from the operation of the settled principle of hierarchy of courts in the land whereby the High Court is enjoined not to pronounce but to stay any judgment where an interlocutory appeal has been duly entered in the Court of Appeal until the determination of the interlocutory appeal by the Court of Appeal as enjoined in section 305 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. This section while empowering the High Court of a State to proceed with a criminal trial to conclusion without considering any application for stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal, the High Court is duty bound upon conclusion of the trial, and if an interlocutory appeal has been duly entered in the Court of Appeal, to postpone the delivery of its judgment until after the interlocutory appeal has been determined by the Court of Appeal. This is indeed a very salutary provision and would in great measure eliminate unnecessary delays in the conduct of criminal trials before the High Court while not derogating from the hierarchy of courts in the land. It follows, therefore, that an application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before a trial Court shall no longer be entertained.[ Olisa Metuh v FRN (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 157 at 179] (c)Plea Bargain The concept of plea bargain is one of the most laudable innovations of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 wherein specific, extensive and detailed provisions are made to govern the application of plea bargain in criminal trials in Nigeria.[ Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, s 270 (1) - (17); Bando v FRN (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 841) 1510] Ordinarily, plea bargain is a mutually negotiated agreement between the Prosecution and the Defendant but the minimum requirement is that it must involve both a conviction and at least some form of minimal custodial sentence to be imposed on the Defendant. It is not and should not become or be converted into a mere slap on the wrist of a Defendant. Nevertheless, the concept of plea bargain if properly and proactively implemented would enhance and engender speedy dispensation of justice in criminal trials in Nigeria, whereby only matters in which there is no agreement between the parties would proceed to full plenary trial, thus, saving the time of both the Court and the parties in all those matters in which the plea bargain provisions are, on the mutual agreement of the parties, applied in criminal trials in Nigeria. (d)Dispensation to conclude a trial by Judges elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal By Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 it is provided that a Judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a High Court Judge only for the purpose of concluding any part-heard Criminal Matter pending before him at the time of his elevation and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this provision shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. Generally, before now, if a High Court judge hearing a criminal matter is elevated and sworn into office immediately as a Justice of the Court of Appeal, the hearing of all matters, including criminal matters even at advanced stage of defense, would have to start afresh before another judge. Thus, it is to remedy this situation that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act has provided that a High Court judge elevated to the Court of Appeal shall continue to hear and conclude all part-heard criminal cases pending before him provided that this shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.[ Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, s 396 (7)] This provision on the surface appears to be a laudable one. However, this provision has generated so much debate among scholars, Judges and lawyers about its constitutionality and legitimacy. Pronouncing on this provision, the Supreme Court in the case of Ude Udeogu v FRN & 2 ors[ (SC/622C/2019, Supreme Court, 8th May 2020)] per Ejembi Eko JSC held that: The enactment of Section 396(7) of ACJA, 2015 is an attempt by the National Assembly…to whittle down the operation of Section 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Ab initio Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 was set out to frontally contradict and challenge the letters, substance and spirit of Section 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution. To that extent Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 is inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly Section 290(1) thereof. Therefore, by operation of Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 to the extent of its inconsistency with Section 290(1) of the Constitution, is void. It follows, therefore, that section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act has by the above decision of the Supreme Court been declared null and void on the basis that it is a direct and deliberate affront to the provision of Section 290(1) which is to the effect that once a judicial officer is elevated to the Higher Court and he has taken the Oath of Office and allegiance and has declared his assets, he is fit to exercise the powers of the office to which he is elevated. He, therefore, cannot sit as a judge in the Court from which he was elevated. (e)Electronic Recording of Proceedings The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 has, in cognizance of the need to jettison manual recording whenever possible to engender smooth proceedings, made provisions for electronic recording of the proceedings of the Court.[ Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, s 364(1) - (5)] This innovation, if properly implemented, would be a blessing to the Courts since one of the major causes of delay in criminal trials is the cumbersome long hand manual recording of proceedings by the Courts. However, where the proceedings are not recorded electronically, manual recording can be resorted to by the Court. The latter provision is very understandable in a clime where even if the Courts are equipped with electronic recorders, electricity supply to power them is still epileptic and far below per. (f)Power to take Depositions in Certain Cases While the evidence in chief of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be taken vide his statement on oath as in civil proceedings, but by the provision of the new law the courts are empowered to take deposition of witnesses in some clearly defined exceptional circumstances.[ Ibid, s 362(1)] However, it does appear that no justifiable reason has been given for the continued refusal to toe the line as in civil proceedings where the evidence in chief is now by a statement on oath and which is adopted by the witness who is then cross examined by the adversary. In the view of the writer, this is a much surer way of expediting criminal trials in the courts than the clinging unto oral evidence in court and deposition on oath in very limited circumstances in criminal trials. Ironically, the severe limitations placed on depositions of evidence in criminal trials and thus restricting it to only those exceptional circumstances would, in the view of writer, clearly and readily defeat the very need for speedy trials in criminal matters. (g)Leave no Longer Required Preferring Information Previously, under the old regime of administration of criminal justice it was mandatory to obtain the leave of Court to prefer information against an accused person.[ FRN v Wabara (2013) LPELR 20083(SC), where the Supreme Court held emphatically that leave of the High Court must be obtained before an indictable offence can be tried at the High Court where a preliminary inquiry was not held. See also Ugwu v State (2013) LPELR 20177(SC); Egigia v State (2013) LPELR 20754(CA); Bature v State (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 320) 267.] It was intended to show prima facie justification for the charge but led to delays as it could take months before the leave is eventually obtained due mostly to the congested list of the Courts. Under the new law[ Administration Criminal Justice Act 2015, s 381] leave is no longer required and the time spent pursuing leave would now rather be utilized for the arraignment of the Defendant. (h)Proof of Evidence as Essential for Speedy Criminal Trials This is one of the laudable aspects of the old regime brought forward into the new regime of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. By section 379 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Information preferred before the Court against the Defendant must be supported by a proof of evidence consisting of (i) the list of witnesses, (ii) the list of exhibits to be tendered, (iii) summary of statements of the witnesses, (iv) copies of statement of the defendant, (v) any other document, report, or material that the prosecution intends to use in support of its case at the trial, (vi) particulars of bail or any recognizance, bond or cash deposit, if defendant is on bail, (vii) particulars of place of custody, where the defendant is in custody, (viii) particulars of any plea bargain arranged with the defendant; (ix) particulars of any previous interlocutory proceedings, including remand proceedings, in respect of the charge, and (x) any other relevant document as may be directed by the court; which must be served on the Defendant. It has been posited earlier in this study that one of the very essence of the provision for ‘trial within a reasonable time’ by the basic law of the land (Nigerian Constitution), is the guarantee of the right of the Defendant to both fair trial and its constituent part, fair hearing. With the proof of evidence[ FRN v Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 331@ p. 350, where the Supreme Court held inter alia thus: “It is worth the while to know that proof of evidence are not the same as the statements of the witnesses the Appellant would call at the trial. Proofs of evidence are summaries of the statements of those witnesses to be called at the trial by the Appellant.] served on the Defendant, all the parties, on the one hand, and the Court, on the other hand would have a clearer picture of the case the Defendant is expected to meet at the trial and thereby eliminating as much as feasible all forms of delays associated with secrecy of the evidence at the disposal of the Prosecution. All these measures of frontloading of both the proof of evidence and the documents[ Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 36(6) (b) provides thus: “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to; (b) be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense.”] to be relied upon at the trial of the Defendant and amounting in real terms to provision of adequate facilities[ Okoye v COP (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1488) 276 @ p. 300 per Aka’ahs JSC., who stated inter alia thus: “The moment an accused person is facing a charge, his personal liberty is at stake and before that liberty is taken away, he must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself. ], augurs well not only for speedy trials but also assists in the search for truth to ensure that justice is done to all persons and the State in all criminal matters and no miscarriage of justice is allowed to occur or fester or thrive in the system of administration of criminal justice. It also eliminates the springing of surprises which are one sure bet for delayed proceedings by reasons of adjournments usually sought to counter the surprises. 3.2 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR TRIAL WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME It is considered under here the institutions that play or should play a crucial role in the speedy dispensation of criminal justice in Nigeria. 3.2.1 The National and State Houses of Assembly Both the National and State Houses of Assembly are law making institutions or bodies that have been constitutionally created and so vested with the powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of the Federation of Nigeria or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the exclusive, concurrent and residual lists.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 4(1), (2), (6) & (7)] The National Assembly shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.[ Ibid, s 4(1)] In response to the mandate given these institutions, various laws have been made for the peace, order and good governance of the Federation. Of paramount concern to this study, is the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 which was enacted by the National Assembly to bring criminal justice administration in Nigeria in tune with present day realities. Various States within the Federation of Nigeria have also re-enacted the Act as State law bring to bear its provisions in the administration of criminal justice within those States. The Administration of Criminal justice Act has made provisions for the speedy dispensation of justice as considered above. 3.2.2 The Courts By virtue of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)[ Ibid, s 6], the Courts were established and vested with the judicial powers to resolve or adjudicate over disputes or matters among the people of Nigeria as well as the government, organs and institutions.[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 6(6)(b)] The court which is believed to be the last hope of the common man, must exercise its powers, justifiably, judiciously and judicially. The court plays a crucial role in the trial of an offender within reasonable time. As a symbol and organ of justice, it is expected that trial of an offender should not be dragged on for so long thereby resulting in a punishment in itself of an offence which the offender has not yet been declared guilty or convicted of. The courts as guardians of justice must, therefore, be vigilant against delay antics and ensure the observance of the requirement of trial within a reasonable time as spelt out in the Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. 3.2.3 The Police The Police has, by virtue of the Police Act,[ Police Act 2020, s 4] been vested with not only investigative but also prosecutorial powers. It is worthy of note that most criminal cases before the courts today have not only been initiated by the Police but are also prosecuted by them. The investigation of allegations against the offender by the Police has in most cases been the cause for delay in the speedy dispensation of criminal cases. The Supreme Court has taken the view in the case of Osahon v Federal Republic of Nigeria[ [2006] 2 SCNJ 1] that every police officer can now prosecute in any superior court of record including the Supreme Court. The Police must, therefore, exercise due diligence in the performance of their duties especially as it regards, the speedy but careful investigation of allegations, arraignment of offenders before the Court, as well as the prosecution of offenders. 3.2.4 The Correctional Centres In ensuring proper correction of inmates, security of life and property which is the primary function of any criminal justice system, the place of correctional centres or prisons cannot be overemphasized. The main aim of establishing the prison institution in Nigeria is to provide rehabilitation and correctional services for those who violated the law.[ F Chukwudi, ‘Challenges of Reforms in the Nigerian Prison system: Lesson from USA and South Africa’. Policy Journal of Social Science and Public [2012] (35) 45] The prison system is also expected to inculcate in the offenders basic moral values that will make them become law abiding citizens. Prisons are generally conceived as corrective institutions. This is the prime objective of establishing prisons all over the world. Prisons are usually structured to identify the peculiar problem of each inmate and devise means of guiding the individual out of the problem.[ Chukwudi, (n 71)] Similarly, the realization of the major objective of the prisons system, that is, the reformation and rehabilitation of convicts, is to be done through a complicated set of mechanisms consisting among others: creating awareness, group work, case work session, recreational activities, religious services, adult and remedial educational programmes, educational development project, skills acquisition programmes, mid-range industrial production, agricultural services and after-care service programmes.[ Ibid ] According to Otu and Nnam[ Out and Nnam ‘The impact of prison conditions and social forces on criminal recidivism in Nigeria’ South South Journal of Culture and Development [2014] (128) 23] modern prisons or correctional centres are expected to house, among other correctional facilities, a main entrance, a religious facility, educational facility, a gym, a health care centre or hospital, a segregation unit, safe cells for people under constant visual observation, a visiting section, a death row for those awaiting execution, staff accommodation area, and services such as kitchens, industrial or agricultural plant and recreational area. On the contrary, Ajah and Nweke[ Ajah and Nweke, ‘Challenges facing Vocational Training of Prison Inmates in Nigeria: A Study of Abakaliki and Awka Prisons. Ponte’. International Journal of Sciences and Research. [2017] (32)48] observed that Nigeria is yet to implement the United Nations minimum standard because all these functional correction-based prerequisites are grossly lacking in Nigeria prisons. The Nigeria prisons have a few things in common: congestion, dirty and inadequate medical rehabilitation facilities. As a result, some inmates relapse into crime and criminality few months after their release while many of them fall sick and die before they are tried or as they serve time.[ Alabi and Alabi, ‘The pains of imprisonment: a sociological analysis of the experiences of inmates in Ilorin and Kirikiri prisons’. Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development [2011] (235)241] CHAPTER FOUR NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND CAUSES OF DELAY IN THE SPEEDY DISPENSATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 4.1 NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM The Criminal Justice system is an apparatus the society uses to enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community.[ The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (United States Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., February, 1967) 27] It is the sum total of society’s activities to defend itself against the actions it describes as criminal.[ F Adler, O W Mueller and WS Laufer, Criminal Justice: An Introduction (2nd Edn, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2000) 16] It also refers to that integral fusion of machineries of government that aim to enforce law and redress crime. These include the Police,[ Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (amended), s 214] Ministry of Justice[ Ibid, ss 174 & 211], Judiciary[ Ibid, s 6] and Correctional services.[ Prisons Act, Cap. P. 29, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, s 1] Adebayo[ A M Adebayo, Administration of Criminal Justices System in Nigeria (Princeton Publishing Co, 2012) 25] opines that the Criminal Justice System is an ‘institution and practices of Government whose main focus is to mitigate and deter crime, uphold social control and sanction individuals who violate the set laws of a specific state with rehabilitation and criminal penalties.’ Owasanoye and Ani[ B Owasanoye & C Ani, Improving Case Management Coordination Amongst the Police, Prosecution and Court’ accessed 2nd March 2023] have described the relationship between the functionaries in the Criminal Justice System as a ‘symbiotic relationship’. Any defect at any point frustrates the whole system which has a single identity.[ H Okoeguale, “Criminal Justice In Nigeria: The Need For Administrative Dexterity” Journal of Public and International Law (AJPIL) [2015] (226) 229] It becomes obvious, therefore, that the Criminal Justice System is a machinery of government whose aim is to prevent crime by punishing same. In Nigeria, the criminal justice system is, therefore, the whole gamut of criminal laws (substantive and adjectival), the institutions which includes the Nigeria Police Force, the Attorney-General and Minister/Commissioner for Justice including prosecuting law officers, the Judiciary and correctional services. All these are required to work hand in hand to address crime. In spite of the various machineries for criminal justice administration, the problem of delay has rendered the quick dispensation of criminal justice more of a myth than a reality. Indeed, the trend of delay in the system runs through pretrial, trial and post trial stages of the criminal justice system. A preliminary point which must be borne in mind is the fact that some kinds of delay are inevitable in the criminal justice system. Consequently, the distinction between avoidable and unavoidable delays must be borne in mind. Thus, while the Criminal Justice System disapproves unnecessary delays, it condones delays which are necessary and desirable. Against this backdrop, it has been held that even where the grant of request for adjournment will result in delayed trial, such request should at least in the interest of fair trial be granted. Mbanefo JSC[ Justice Akpor & Or v Ighorigo (1972) 2 SC 115] (as he then was) admirably expressed this view thus: It is necessary in dealing with matters of this kind to bear in mind the justifiable anxiety of the Magistrate to see that the cases are disposed of with minimum delay. It is in the accuser’s interest that this should be so. After six months and several adjournments, one can understand the Magistrate’s desire to dispose of the case. But this should not be done at the expense of giving the accused person adequate opportunity of defending himself. What emerges from the careful analysis of the view reflected above is that while justice must not be delayed, there is hardly any virtue in hurried justice. Accordingly, the Criminal Justice System must seek to strike equilibrium between delayed and hurried justice. The unfortunate menace of delay in dispensation of justice in Nigeria has been decried and condemned by many commentators at different platforms. A few of such instances are worthy of mention. Justice Niki Tobi[ N Tobi , “Law, Judiciary and Nigerian Democracy” in I A Ayua (ed): Law Justice and the Nigerian Society: Essays in Honour of Hon Justice Mohammed Bellow (Nigerian Institute of Advance Legal Studies, 1995) 33] had observed that one perennial problem in the administration of justice in any legal system is the question of delay. There is so much delay in the administration of justice in Nigeria that one wonders whether the parties get value justice at the end. A situation, for instance, where litigation at times takes some six years or more to be completed in the High Court is not good enough. Cases of delay must be addressed if the rule of law is to have any meaning. In a related development, former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo[ Olusegun Obasanjo, All Nigeria Judges Conference (Spectrum Books Ltd ,2003) 40] decried the ugly trend of delay in Nigeria’s justice delivery system, when he remarked that: …the inexcusable delay in our justice delivery system is a great concern to me and it must be to your lordships. ‘Concern’ is perhaps a euphemistic description, one can find for a most scandalously embarrassing situation where a simple case of breach of contract will endure for five or more years in the court of first instance, and, last for 15 years before the final determination in our Apex Court. The position is even worse and more pathetic in criminal cases, particularly when the accused person who enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until proved otherwise and who stands the chance of an acquittal in the end is in the meantime, kept in custody. It should be borne in mind that the bulk of the delays in the quick disposal of criminal cases are experienced at the Magistrates Court. It is trite that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are basically courts of appellate jurisdictions. They, therefore, lack original criminal jurisdiction. Majority of cases are dealt with at the Magistrates Courts in exercise of their summary jurisdiction. 4.1.1 Objectives of the Criminal Justice System The clearly stated objectives under the Criminal Justice System help all agencies working together to have some sense of direction. Under the repealed Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Procedure Code no clear objective of the Criminal Justice System was stated anywhere.[ The Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Act have been repealed by Section 493 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.] Consequently, it became questionable whether Nigeria truly ran a criminal justice system having a systematic approach to the administration of criminal justice or whether what really existed was the practice of mere criminal prosecutions. Each of the institutions in the Criminal Justice System operated on its own, and had no common ideology to subscribe to. In arresting, investigating, arraignment, trial, conviction and sentencing, there was no coherence. This led to a situation whereby the system became disjointed. In the United Kingdom (UK), the objective of the Criminal Justice System is stated to be: “to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent.”[ The National Archives of the UK Government, “Working Together for Justice” accessed 3rd March 2023 ] This objective wields a lot of influence in decision making for all the agencies in the Criminal Justice System and throughout the whole process of criminal justice administration. It is obvious that while taking steps to punish the guilty, government is duty bound to make provisions for the protection of suspects, victims of crimes and witnesses. In furtherance of the set objectives, the Criminal Justice System of the UK set some goals as follows, which all the agencies are required to work towards: (a)To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Criminal Justice System in bringing offenders to justice. (b)To increase public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System. (c) To increase victim satisfaction with the police, and victim and witness satisfaction with the Criminal Justice System. (d) To consistently collect, analyze and use good quality ethnicity data to identify and address race disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System; and (e)To increase the recovery of criminal assets by recovering £250m of assets acquired through crime.[ Ibid ] In Nigeria, the nearest to an objective of Criminal Justice System is that expressed under the auspices of ‘the purpose of the Act’ in the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act 2015 which is “to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interest of the suspect, the defendant and the victim.”[ Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, s 1(1)] It is belabouring and grueling to note here that, no agency, parastatal or office of government is saddled with the responsibility of ensuring the full realization of the said “purpose”. The Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee is, however, required by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, to ensure that the provisions of the Act are applied.[ Ibid, s 470] It is with greatest respect noted that, there is a difference between ensuring the application of the Act and carrying out or ensuring the realization of the purposes of the Criminal Justice System. While the former requires no strategy or ingenuity, implying that the Act itself is the strategy, the latter does. It is this strategy or model that has been described by an American legal scholar, Herbert Packer[ Richard Garside, “The Purpose of the Criminal Justice System” accessed 3rd March 2023], to be of two types, that is, ‘crime control’ and ‘due process’.[ Garside (n 94)] The crime control model is one whereby the emphasis is placed on the containment and repression of criminal behaviour; successful criminal detection, prosecution and conviction which are hallmarks of an effective criminal control model. The due process model, on the other hand, places at least as much emphasis on protecting the rights of the innocent as it does on convicting the guilty. The protection of individual liberty in the face of a potentially over-powerful state is a key preoccupation of the due process model.[ Ibid ] The ability to realize the purpose of the Criminal Justice System requires a lot of ingenuity and strategy which would, to a large extent, influence the pattern of operation of the institutions in the Criminal Justice System. Perhaps the ‘purpose of the Act’ is not a sufficient statement of the objectives of Nigeria’s Criminal Justice System. There exists, therefore, a vacuum as to an established agency of government that should coordinate the Criminal Justice System effectively towards achieving the purpose it seeks to achieve. 4.2 CAUSES OF DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN NIGERIA The problems or causes of delay in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria abound. These problems or causes of delay cut-across all sectors of the criminal justice system, that is, the Police, the Criminal Justice department comprised of the Attorney General and his underlings, legal practitioners, the judiciary and the Prison authorities. Some of the causes of delay in the administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria will be treated as follows: 4.2.1 Case Flow Management and Delay by Judges The overall objective of the court is a just and timely determination of every case that comes before it. The court’s process should be open, efficient, understandable and accessible. Therefore, case flow management processes are intended to contribute to the achievement of these objectives.[A.A Alabi, Case Flow Management in Lower Courts: Problems and Solutions (MCJ Professional Publishers, 2004) 38] Each judge is expected to manage the cases filed before him in order to avoid congestion in his court. But when new cases come to him in rapid succession as it happens in some jurisdictions, congestion will build up and become unavoidable. However, even in such circumstances, one can easily see the difference between a lazy judge and a hardworking judge. Some judges crawl in writing, others engage in unnecessary arguments with counsel during hearings, while others cannot sit for long at a stretch. All these and many more, bring their varied and variegated drawbacks to speedy criminal trials. For judges who prefer to have a call-over day, then, cases are fixed, sometimes with the judge’s knowledge and sometimes without his knowledge. This is an area that will continue to create problems unless the judge can monitor the fixtures made by the Registrar. This is because some registrars can hardly turn down applications of lawyers who will prefer a particular date, which invariably will not be suitable for the court. Consequently, and with no intention to hamper the work of the court, more matters that cannot be dealt with in a day are fixed for that day.[ O Olatawura “Organization of Characters: Fixing cases and Adjournment” in Induction Course lectures for Newly Apointed Judges and Kadis ( MCJ Professional Publishers Ltd, 1993) 13] Some of the problems bordering on case flow are caused by the judge, albeit, often times unwittingly. For instance, some judges make it a policy to fix only one case for a day, if it is set down for hearing. This is unwise because where an unforeseen impediment occurs, such as illness of counsel or inability to serve subpoenas, the result is that such a day is wasted. Some judges, due to pressure from counsel, neglect to hear cases in accordance with their priority in time of filing; the result is that before they know it, cases that were filed about ten years ago are left pending. Eventually, the potential witnesses in the case become disenchanted and eventually stop attending the case, thus frustrating the justiciable decision that their evidence could have helped the court to achieve in the case.[ Ibid ] At some other instances, judges, in their bid to pave way for witnesses who are elderly or who come from outside the jurisdiction of the court to testify, in order to avoid losing their testimony, inadvertently fix many of such cases on a particular day. The unfortunate result is that on such a date, he would find out that by the time he has treated just one case, the better part of the day is gone. This eventually accounts for reasons why some courts have too many part-heard matters whilst other judges, pile-up judgments, which will expire within days of each other. And where for any inextricable reasons, they are unable to write such judgments on schedule they soon find themselves being caught up in the web of contravention of section 294 of the Nigerian Constitution. 4.2.2 Delay Caused by Prosecutors and Legal Practitioners In the criminal justice process, it is the state in most cases that prosecutes on behalf of the complainant. Thus, whether a case would be disposed of timeously depends largely on the efforts of prosecuting counsel. Furthermore, under the Nigerian Criminal Justice System, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, the burden of proving his guilt rests on the prosecutor and not the accused to prove his innocence. The police, after conclusion of investigation of a case, send the case file to the Director of Public Prosecution’s office for advice.[ John Agbonika and Alewo Musa, “Delay in the Administration of Criminal Justice in Nigeria: Issues from a Nigerian Viewpoint.” Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization [2014] (224) (26) 22] When eventually the trial is commenced, the case may suffer incessant adjournments which prolong the case unduly, simply because sometimes, the Counsels are not ready with their evidence or that they lack required infrastructure or funds to prosecute the case.[ Ibid, (n 100) 24] Delays are often caused in court because most police prosecutors have no basic legal training for prosecuting even simple offences. Sometimes they call a number of irrelevant witnesses and leave out the important ones. In most cases, they are advised to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for assistance. Where a case that has been charged to court involves serious offences that require the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) such as murder or rape, the relevant case file is usually duplicated and sent to the DPP, so that the police would be in a position to answer queries from the DPP, not necessarily queries on misconduct, but also giving room to the Police to provide clarification on certain ambiguous or insufficient aspects of investigations. Very often, prosecutors have complained that the police have not been able to ask for the DPP’s advice because of lack of funds to duplicate the case files.[ Ibid ] The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v Osahon,[ (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.312) 516 ] must have come as a relief in that police officers can now prosecute criminal cases even in the High Courts. As laudable as the decision may be, it is not in doubt that the incessant delays ordinarily experienced at the lower courts may likely extend to the High Courts, because of the command structure of the force as is today in Nigeria. It is not uncommon for prosecuting police officer to ask for adjournment of cases, on the pretext that they had sought for the advice of the DPP and were awaiting his reply. The snag is that there is no means of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of such statements and invariably, the judge would have no choice but to adjourn the case. In some cases, it has been discovered that the DPP would have advised the police to discontinue prosecution against the accused person but for some inexplicable reasons, the prosecuting officers would withhold the information from the court, with the result that such cases would continue to feature on the cause list thus, adding to already existing problem of congestion.[ Agbonika and Musa, (n 100) 30] Legal practitioners, on the other hand, also cause delay in the administration of criminal justice. One major cause of delay on their part is lack of industry. It is a fact that most counsel exercise professional expertise. The problem, however, is that some counsel do not sufficiently involve themselves in pre-trial preparations, and so, can hardly keep up with the tempo in court. Some defense counsel, deliberately delay trials by requesting for adjournments, purposely to ensure the full payment of their professional fees, prior to the conclusion of the trial.[ Ibid ] Some defense counsel, who are paid on the basis of the number of court appearances, consciously delay criminal trials with a view to beefing up their fees. Aside the delay, due to non-payment of professional fees, the structural organization of the legal profession further contributes towards the delay of criminal trials. Most law firms are, basically, sole practice in outlook. Private legal practitioners with sole practices, personally handle most of their cases. They either refuse to employ junior counsel or where they employ such juniors, they fail to entrust these juniors with cases.[ Ibid ] Such legal practitioners frequently experience conflict of dates in different courts. Where the conflicts in the cases arise within the same Magistrarial or judicial division, such private legal practitioners subsequently ask for some of their cases to be stood down to enable them attend to other cases. Such requests are either granted or refused. It is noteworthy, therefore, that the practice of requesting for stand down or adjournment constitutes a major contributory factor in the delay of criminal trials. For instance in Ndu v The State,[ (1990) 7 NWLR (pt 164) 216] trial of the accused was marred with unconscionable delays on account of failure of the accused to perfect the brief of his defence counsel who applied for several adjournments under the guise of ill-health and inability to procure witnesses among other frivolous reasons. The accused appealed on the ground that he was not granted fair hearing. Obaseki J.S.C., did not hesitate to show his displeasure at the lackadaisical attitude of the defense counsel when he described in his judgment, the attitude of the defense counsel who from the time the prosecutor closed his case, as showing an unwillingness to proceed with the defense. The frequency of applications for adjournment was sickening and unbecoming of counsel instructed to conduct the defense of an accused person charged with murder. The learned Justice further stated that: …murder is a capital offence and once a trial of an accused person has opened, any defense counsel in the proceedings is not only bound to appear but also bound to perform his duty to his client, the failure of his client or inability of client to pay his fees notwithstanding. Indeed, the attitude of the learned counsel is despicable and ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Lawyers are ministers in the temple of justice and must discharge their duties with utmost sense of responsibility. It is appreciated that adjournments are needful sometimes to ensure adequate preparation of cases but this must not be abused or be allowed to cause unnecessary delay.[ Ibid ] 4.2.3 Delay Caused by the Detection and Investigation of Crime Substantial delays occur at the stage of investigation of crimes. A department of the Police known as the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D) is usually in charge of investigation and detection of all crimes in Nigeria. Where investigation has been properly conducted, it contributes in no small measure to effective administration of criminal justice. The judiciary, one of the organs in criminal justice administration, can hardly function without the co-operation of efficient police officers. Often times, proper investigation of cases is hampered by a number of factors like paucity and frequent transfer of Police officers and lack of funds to sponsor proper investigations.[ Agbonika and Musa, (n 100) 34] The Nigeria Police is a federal set up. This invariably means that all officers in the force are subject to transfer to any part of the federation at anytime. Most times, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, police officers serving in police stations or divisions are very few, and are transferred without any regard to the assignments which they might have had at hand. Possibly, they might be at different stages of investigations. If they have gone far with investigations the cases will be handed over to another officer, but if the investigations are already completed, this would mean that the officer would have to return to the particular court at his former serving post to which the case was charged for trial, to testify whenever he was required to do so.[ Ibid ] However, most of the time, it turns out that the prosecuting police officer would inform the court that he had sent hearing notice to the Investigation Police Officer (I.P.O) but was yet to get any reply, while at some other time, the IPO himself will send a reply to such hearing notice to the effect either that he was already billed to appear before another court of co-ordinate or higher jurisdiction or that he would not be available to give evidence because of other urgent matters assigned to him in his new station. These excuses whether genuine or not have always caused delay in the trial. Police officers have also always complained that expenses incurred during investigations such as traveling and night allowances are not refunded to them. Consequently, police officers invariably fall back on informants to sponsor the conduct of investigations and assembling of witnesses for the hearing of criminal cases. Thus, where informants are not able to meet their demands, police officers are not always keen on traveling far out of their stations to investigate any new facts or to cross check the old ones or to remind witnesses to appear in court on the day of hearing. The result is that many cases get adjourned from time to time to enable the police carry out further investigations or to assemble witnesses resulting in undue delay.[ Ibid ] 4.2.4 Delay Arising from the Prison Authorities Prison authorities also contribute to the problem of delay in the administration of criminal justice. This often arises in the area of pre-trial detention.[ Ajayi, Johnson Olusegun, “Nigeria Prisons and the Dispensation of Justice” An International Journal of Arts and Humanities [2012] (1) (3) 12] There seems to be constant deviancy and criminality in the society as such the number of pre-trial detainees has become very large. Many suspects remain in prison custody awaiting their trial. The general excuse for their remand is that investigation into their cases is yet to be completed. Some of the accused persons have been in prison custody for more than five years without trial.[ Ibid ] It is, therefore, common to find trials being held up for days, weeks and even months because of the unavailability of accused persons in court to stand their trial. A number of reasons are responsible for this situation. First, is the communication gap between the prison authorities, and prosecutors.[ Agbonika and Musa, (n 100)] Such a situation may occur when prosecutors do not give proper notice to prison authorities of the date of trial. Second, is the unavailability of vehicles to convey the accused persons to court. Third is, the poor medical facilities available to pre-trial detainees which result in their constant breaking down in health while awaiting trial. The result is that on the day of trial, an accused person is reported ill. Fourth, is the reluctance to work on the part of prison and police personnel to provide accused persons in court to face trial. This means that trials are delayed or protracted.[ Ibid ] This leaves the Magistrate or Judge with no option than the issuing of the usual bench instructions or orders which may not even be heeded. Bearing in mind, the adjectival system of trial under the Nigerian Legal System, the trial court cannot proceed in the absence of the accused, the judicial process is slowed down and most of the time, to the detriment of the accused.[ Ajayi, ( n 112) 17] There have also been reported cases of prison officials colluding with awaiting trial inmates to escape from custody either while they are in transit enroute to the court for trial, or by leaving prison doors loosely open or improperly guarded and feigning jail break among the detainees to enable them escape.[ Agbonika and Musa (n 100) 44] This usually frustrates the entire trial and prematurely throws the accused persons back into the society to wreck more havoc. 4.3 CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (ACJA) 2015 ACROSS NIGERIA 4.3.1 Challenges Indeed the Administration of Criminal Justice Act is a laudable development in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. There are, however, certain challenges that shall be encountered in its implementation as well as certain defects still existing in the ACJA which can be improved upon. It must be noted that the Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Procedure Code were in operation for many years. This means that the stakeholders in the criminal justice system have been used to the old way of doing things. It would, therefore, take some time for everyone to adjust to the new law as some states are yet to domesticate the ACJA 2015.[ A Ahmad, “New Administration of Criminal Justice Act Will Ensure All Law Enforcement Agencies Work Together” THISDAY Live (2 June 2015) accessed 4th March 2023] Nevertheless, this change of orientation need not take an eternity. There needs to be consistent and rigorous training on the ACJA for judges, police officers, prison officers, lawyers, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) officials, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) officials and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Another main challenge that may militate against the effective implementation of the ACJA is lack of adequate funds.[ Ibid ] A lot of things under the Act presuppose that funds shall be available to the police, courts, office of the Attorney General and many others. For instance, the requirement that the statement of suspects should be recorded electronically implies that the police and other crime investigation authorities shall be provided with recording devices. The courts must also be equipped with electronic and information technology devices. A court must be equipped with the relevant devices necessary to play the electronically recorded statement. Government must, therefore, be willing and ready to allocate funds for the implementation of this Act. This is essential as it must allocate resources to ensure that the rights of the Nigerian citizen are protected via an effective implementation of the ACJA. The creation of a criminal registry at each police command and a central criminal registry also implies that there should be constant power supply and internet service where this is to be done electronically. A manual or paper central registry will definitely be cumbersome, difficult to achieve, slow and ineffective. Yet there is epileptic power supply and the internet connection is usually unstable, unreliable and expensive to procure. Many other government agencies that have also switched to a central database like the Federal Road Safety Corp (FRSC) and the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) still face the challenge of slow or non-existent internet connection thereby making transactions and applications in these agencies slow. The nation cannot afford for a similar situation to plague the central criminal registry.[ Ibid ] The powers of the police and other public authorities seem real and enforceable under the ACJA. Although the Act has been lauded for the various ways it seeks to respect and prevent the abuse or infringement of the rights of the citizens or suspects, in certain respects, the Act makes the rights of the citizen a goodwill that cannot be enforced as an entitlement.[ Olofinmoyin Idowu, “The Silent Revolution: the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015” ThisDaylive (9 June 2016)