Reps move to curtail adjournments, awaiting trials, others
APRIL 29, 2013
House of Representatives is seeking to limit the number of adjournments of cases before they are disposed of in the federal courts and courts in the Federal Capital Territory.
The House Committee on Justice told The PUNCH on Sunday that the move was to speed up the trial of cases as against the present practice where cases dragged in courts owing to endless adjournments.
Already, the ‘Bill for an Act to repeal the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap C41LFN, 2004; Criminal Procedure Code, Cap C42LFN, 2004; Administration of Justice Commission Act, Cap A3LFN, 2004; and enact the Administration of Criminal Justice Act Applicable in Federal Courts and Courts of the Federal Capital Territory, to make provisions for speedy and efficient administration of criminal justice and provide for other matters related thereto, 2013’, has passed a second reading at the House.
Chairman of the committee, Mr. Ali Ahmad, said stakeholders, including judicial officers, the Nigerian Bar Association, law enforcement agencies and civil society organisations would appraise the “game-changer provisions” in the proposed law at a public hearing in Abuja on Tuesday (tomorrow).
Ahmad explained that the target of the bill was to peg the number of adjournments of criminal cases, thereby eliminating time wasting, resources and the harrowing experiences suspects go through.
He added, “That is not all; there is the problem of prison congestion, which is a major issue in this country. In other climes, the law makes specific provisions for the length of time a case can stay in the courts.
“You will know that this case will start today and would have ended by this date. There is a period.
“This will help to address prison congestion, awaiting trials and all that is associated with them. That is one of the things that the House wants to achieve with this bill, if it is passed.”
For example, under Section 16 of the bill, court registrars face disciplinary actions for withholding court decisions and records on criminal trials for more than 30 days.
The section says a “central criminal records registry at the federal level and criminal records registry at every state police command for proper documentation and record keeping; and imposing a duty on court registrars to transmit court’s decisions in criminal trials to the central registry within 30 days or face disciplinary measures by the Federal Judicial Service Commission.”
Similarly, Section 396 defines “measures for speedy trial such as trial from day-to-day after arraignment, restriction on number and interval of adjournments and electronic recording of trials to reduce the problems associated with trial de novo of part-heard matters.”
Ahmad added that the bill made specific provisions on “plea bargaining” as well as “restrictions on stay of proceedings.”
For example, Sections 270-277 deal with “clarity of procedure for implementing plea bargaining and measures to prevent its abuse”.
Other aspects of the bill indicate that it is looking at “alternatives to imprisonment” where the offence in question is not serious enough to warrant a prison sentence.
For convicted persons, the bill provides in Sections 453-467, “alternatives to imprisonment such as community sentence, parole and suspended sentence for minor offenders and first-timers”.
Section 7 of the bill prohibits the practice of arresting family members or associates of suspects “in lieu” and the “inhuman treatment of arrested person or his torture”.
It adds that the arresting officer has the duty to generate “full records” of arrest, including date, photographs and other evidence that will eliminate delays in proceedings before the courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment