Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Messrs. Femi Falana and Sebastine Hon, on Thursday faulted the directive issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Justice Ishaq Bello, asking magistrates in the FCT judiciary to stop granting remand orders to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to detain suspects of corruption and economic crimes.
Justice Bello had given the directive on Tuesday, during a visit to the Keffi Medium Prison, Nasarawa State, where he reviewed cases involving 322 prisoners who were awaiting trials before FCT courts.
In the course of the review of the cases, five of the awaiting-trial inmates were freed.
The CJ had said, “Let me also use this opportunity to say this: I understand that EFCC has been bringing some cases to you and you have been granting them remand orders; you must no longer do this from today (Tuesday).”
However, Falana and Hon said in separate statements on Thursday that the CJ’s directive contravened the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Lufadeju vs Johnson and provisions of sections 293 and 296(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
They both argued that the option open to a suspect who felt aggrieved by an order of remand was to apply for a bail or file a suit for the enforcement of his rights.
Falana, who argued that the issuance of remand orders was a practice all over the world, said the CJ’s directive had no binding force.
He said, “A suspect affected by a remand order is entitled to apply for bail before the magistrate court or proceed to the High Court to apply to the High Court to secure the enforcement of his/her fundamental right to personal liberty.
“But the Chief Judge lacks the authority to countermand or invalidate the powers conferred on magistrate courts to issue remand orders by a valid and subsisting Act of the National Assembly.
“The constitutional validity of Section 236 of the Lagos State Criminal Procedure Law, 2007 which is in pari materia with Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 was upheld by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of Lufadeju vs Johnson (2007) 8 N.W.L.R (PT 1037) 535.
“In view of the doctrine of stare decisis, the Chief Judge ought not to have disregarded the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the powers of magistrate courts to issue remand orders for the detention of suspects before arraignment in courts of competent jurisdiction. Since the statement made or directive credited to the Chief Judge cannot invalidate the provisions of Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, we call on the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court to withdraw the controversial directive forthwith.
“In the interest of justice, our courts should stop creating the dangerous impression that politically- exposed persons and other members of the ruling class are being shielded from investigation and prosecution for heinous economic crimes.”
Hon, who traced the use of “holden charge” to obtain remand orders against suspects to Pax Britannica (the body of British laws received into Nigeria in 1900), said the Supreme Court had affirmed its constitutionality in the Lufadeju and Johnson’s case in 2007.
Hon said, “Indeed, to insist that investigation must be completed before arrest is made will, in the reality of today’s Nigeria, make mockery of the whole system, if for instance high octane accused persons with loads of stolen cash bolt away to some of the Banana Republics which have no extradition agreements with Nigeria, thereby frustrating their arraignment or trial.”
