• CJN is right that our prosecution agencies usually place the cart before the horse
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mariam Mukhtar, has identified one of the weakest cogs in the judicial wheel when she openly denounced the way in which the nation's prosecutorial agencies routinely charged suspects to court, only to then embark on a frantic search for the evidence needed to convict them.
Speaking at a special session organised by the Supreme Court to mark the commencement of the 2013/2014 Legal Year, Justice Mukhtar claimed that such agencies used holden charges to detain suspects in order to buy time to conduct investigations which ought to have been completed before the suspects were charged. The CJN explained that the practice had helped to contribute to the very high number of cases pending before the nation's courts, as well as the length of time it took to conclude cases.
There is little doubt that Nigeria's various prosecutorial agencies are guilty as charged. Even when allowance is made for the operational and other challenges that they face, there can be no justification for their adoption of tactics and strategies which defy the most fundamental tenets of justice.
The Nigeria Police is notorious for arresting individuals and charging them to court without a shred of evidence to back up its claims, only to resort to endless requests for adjournments while desperately searching for evidence it should have secured in the first place. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is no slouch when it comes to shooting first and talking later, either. Ever since its inception in 2003, it has been synonymous with strong-arm tactics – midnight raids on the homes of suspects, laying siege to their places of work, and trial in the media.
Because undue emphasis is put on charging suspects rather than securing cast-iron evidence against them, the investigative process is often carried out in a perfunctory manner. Crime scenes which should be cordoned off are left open, with the consequence that fingerprints, DNA samples and other crucial evidence are hopelessly tainted, if they can be found at all. Instead of conducting the painstaking forensic accounting that is vital to obtaining concrete evidence of financial crimes, prosecution agencies resort to the crude strategy of seizing files and computers, most of which are irrelevant to the case at hand.
When the suspects finally appear in court, the inadequacy of such methods is brutally exposed. Perhaps the most notorious example of prosecutorial perfidy is that of Dr. Peter Odili, the former governor of Rivers State, who was able to secure virtual immunity from prosecution, thanks to the EFCC's incredible inability to vacate the injunction he had obtained against it. The fact that only one ex-governor has gone to jail is a sad testimony to the inefficiency of these methods and the danger their continued use poses to the justice system.
The failure to establish watertight cases against suspects makes it easier for them to escape on legal technicalities, thereby weakening public faith in the judiciary, which in turn strengthens the desire to resort to self-help. As criminals realise that indictments are no guarantee of successful prosecution, they will become even more emboldened in their criminal activities. When others see suspects virtually getting away with murder, they will be tempted to pursue careers in crime.
If this situation is to be halted, Nigeria's prosecution agencies will have to rethink their approach and seek to play by the rules of the game. Investigations must be carried out in a thorough and comprehensive manner. Full use should be made of modern technologies and international assistance. Prosecutors must stop raising public expectations unnecessarily by conducting trials in the media. The human rights of suspects must be fully respected. Functional judicial systems are based on prosecution, not persecution.
