Introduction
Criminal procedure in Nigeria is governed by two principal legislations which were handed down to us by the British Colonial Administration, namely: the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)1 and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)2. Each state in Nigeria has either adopted the CPA or the CPC. These laws have been applied for many decades without significant improvement. As a result, the criminal justice system has lost its capacity to respond quickly to the needs of the society to check the rising waves of crime, speedily bring criminals to book and protect the victims of crime. The ACJA2015 responds to Nigeria’s dire need of a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to reflect the true intents of the Constitution and the demands of a democratic society, eliminate unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases and improve the efficiency of criminal justice administration in the country. Indeed the Buhari Administration should urgently commence the implementation of the ACJA to prosecute its campaign against corruption and allied crimes.
The provisions for the reform of Administration of Criminal Justice were first developed in 2005 by the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice in Nigeria. The Group which was established by the then Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN was maintained by his successor, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN. The Group consisted of individuals drawn from all segments of the criminal justice sector. The immediate Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN upon assumption established the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR) in 2011to implement the proposals for reform produced by the National Working Group under the earlier administrations. The Panel conducted a detailed review of the proposals, brought them up-to-date and adopted an improved version.
The ACJ proposals merged the provisions of the two principal legislations, CPA and CPC into one principal federal Act which is intended to apply uniformly in all federal courts across the entire Federation. Substantially, it preserves the existing criminal procedures. But it introduces new innovative provisions that will enhance the efficiency of the justice system. In other words the ACJA 2015 builds upon the existing framework of criminal justice administration in the country. However, it fills the gaps observed in these laws over the course of several decades. The contents as revised and updated by the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR), with the support of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies have now been enacted into law. The House of Representatives have turned the proposals to a Act and passed them wholly into law.
Purposes of the Act
The main purposes of the ACJ Act (ACJA) 2015 include the following: To promote efficient management of criminal justice institutions and speedy dispensation of justice, protect the society from crime, and Protect the rights and the interest of the defendant and the victim. The purposes of the ACJ Act are captured in section 1 of the Act. These indicate a deliberate shift from punishment as the main goal of the criminal justice to restorative justice which pays attention to the needs of the society, the victims, vulnerable persons and human dignity.
The general provisions of the ACJ Act apply to criminal trial in court except where express provision is made in the Act or in any other law in respect of any particular court or form of trial. Specifically, section 2 of the Act provides that its provision shall not apply to a Court Martial.
Unlawful Arrests
Unlawful arrest is one of the major problems of our criminal process and it is one of the reasons why police stations and prisons are overcrowded. Arrests are sometimes made on allegation that are purely civil in nature or on a frivolous ground. By section 10(1) of the CPA, the police could arrest without a warrant, any person who has no ostensible means of sustenance and who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. This particular provision has been greatly abused by the police who use it as a ground to arrest people indiscriminately. The ACJ Act has deleted this provision.
There have been several instances where the police arrested relations or friends and close associate of a crime suspect to compel the suspect to give himself up even though that person is not linked in any way to the crime the suspect is being accused of. Section 7 of the ACJ Act specifically prohibits arrest in lieu.
Apart from the police, other agencies vested with power of arrest e.g. the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), etc had abused this power to arrest and detain relatives and close associates of criminal suspect in lieu of the suspects where they had challenges in apprehending the suspects. Section 7 should curtail this kind of abuses.
Notification of cause of arrest
Sections 5 of the CPA and 38 of the CPC provide that a police officer or a person making an arrest is to inform the arrested person of the reason for the arrest, except where he is being arrested in course of the commission of the offence or is pursued immediately after the commission of the offence or escaped from lawful custody. It has been argued that this provision falls short of the contemporary requirement3. The ACJ Act 2015 retains this provision in section 6. However there is a proviso which mandates the police officer or any other person to inform the suspect of his right to: (a) remain silent or avoid answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his own choice; (b) consult a legal practitioner of his choice before making, endorsing or writing any statement or answering any question put to him after arrest; (c) free legal representation by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria where applicable.
This provision re-affirms section 35(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides that any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to remain silent or answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his choice.
It is necessary to state here that the proviso in section 6 (2) is quite laudable since the suspect will have the benefit of not only being informed of the offence he has committed but also an additional advantage of counsel assisting in securing his immediate release on bail and ensuring that trial is expeditious. This would in turn prevent prolonged detention of suspects and hopefully bring about decongestion of the prisons.
Humane treatment of an arrested Person and prohibition of arrest on civil cases
The ACJ Act 2015 reiterated the human right constitutional provision of the right to dignity of person. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that: a suspect shall- (a) be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to the dignity of his person. (b) Not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 8 (2) deals with the longstanding problem whereby people employ the machinery of criminal justice wrongly for civil matters. It is not uncommon for people to maliciously instigate the arrest and detention of others for a breach of contract, failure to pay debt owed or for other civil wrongs. This provision that “a suspect shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract.” is a laudable one. It is believed that it would check arbitrary arrest of persons and torture by law enforcement and security agencies.
Mandatory Inventory of Property
In order to encourage accountability and transparency, the ACJ Act introduced in section 10 a provision which states that a police officer making an arrest or to whom a private person hands over a suspect, shall take an inventory of all items or properties recovered from the suspect. The inventory must be duly signed by the police officer and the suspect. However, where the suspect refuses to sign, it shall not invalidate the inventory. This provision also directs that a copy of the inventory shall be given to the suspect, his legal practitioner, or such other person as the suspect may direct.
This provision permits the police to release such property upon request by either the owner of the property or parties having interest in the property pending the arraignment of the suspect before a Court. Where a police officer refuses to release the property to the owner or any person having interest in the property, the police officer shall make a report to the court of the fact of the property taken from the arrested suspect and the particulars of the property.
It is now entirely for the court to decide whether to release the property or any portion of it in the interest of justice to the safe custody of the owner or person having interest in the property. This provision further provides that where any property has been taken from a suspect in section 10 of the ACJ Act, and the suspect is not charged before a court but is released on the ground that there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed an offence, any property taken from the suspect shall be returned to him, provided the property is neither connected to nor a proceed of crime.
Recording of Arrest
The ACJ Act makes provisions for mandatory record of personal data of an arrested Person. This is contained in section 15 of the Act. Such personal data of the arrested person shall include:
(a) the alleged offence(s);
(b) the date and circumstances of the arrest;
(c) name, occupation and residential address of the suspect; and
(d) the suspect’s identification which include his height, photograph, fingerprint impressions, or such other means of identification.
Subsection 2 of section 15, further provides that the process of recording shall be concluded within a reasonable time, not exceeding forty-eight hours. This is intended to check prolong pre-trial detention in the guise of recording the personal data of the arrested person.
Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Registry
Section 16(1) of the ACJ Act makes provision for the establishment, within the Nigeria Police, a Central Criminal Record Registry. Subsection 2 of section 16 provides that there shall be established at every state police command, a Criminal Records Registry which shall keep and transmit all such records to the Central Criminal Records Registry.
Subsection 3 mandates the Chief Registrar of the courts to transmit the decisions of the court in all criminal trials to the Central Criminal Records Registry within thirty-days after delivery of judgment. Where there is default by the Chief Registrar to transmit records within thirty days after judgment, he shall be liable to disciplinary measures by the Federal Judicial Service Commission for misconduct.
The establishment of Central Criminal Record Registry will ensure that all arrests and judgments are well documented. This is intended to avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of Agbi v. Ibori4. The central figure in this case was Chief James OnanefeIbori, the then Governor of Delta State. At the time of commencement of this action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja he was a candidate for the 2003 general elections. In an action before the said High Court two persons suing as Plaintiffs began a joint action to challenge Ibori’s qualification to stand as a gubernatorial candidate for the 2003 election having been an ex-convict. The action did not succeed before the High Court, however on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court in a unanimous judgment allowed the appeal of the Plaintiffs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered that the case be heard afresh by another Judge of the High Court.
The proceedings commenced at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and one of the main issues was whether the record of proceedings of Bwari Upper Area Court in case N0. CK 81-95 (Exhibit A) wherein one James OnanfeIbori was convicted was sufficient to act against the 5th Defendant/Appellant (James OnanfeIbori) as an ex-convict. During the trial the Area Court Judge came to court and testified that James OnanfeIbori was an ex-convict. James OnanfeIbori on the other hand, contented that Exhibit A did not conform to section 157 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court gave judgment in favour of James OnanfeIbori and the matter was dismissed.
With the new provision in the ACJ Act, cases like this would no longer pose a major problem as there would be sufficient information on all convicted persons which would make it easy to identify them in subsequent proceedings.
Electronic recording of confessional statement
Section 15(4) of the Act provides that where a person arrested with or without a warrant of arrest volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall record the statement in writing or may record the making of the confessional statement electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means. Subsection (5) of section 15 provides that notwithstanding the provision of subsection (4), an oral confession of arrested suspect shall be admissible in evidence. This provision of the ACJ Act conforms to the position of the law as contained in the Evidence Act.
Receive evidence by video link. (b) permit the witness to be screened or masked. (c) receive written deposition of expert evidence. (d) any other measure that the court considers appropriate in the circumstance.
The Act also stipulates that anyone who contravenes the provisions of section 232 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of one year imprisonment.
Electronic Record of proceedings
Section 364 provides the legislative backing for court proceedings to be recorded electronically. It states that in certain exceptional circumstances, where the evidence of a technical, professional or expert witness would not ordinarily be contentious as to require cross-examination, the court may grant leave for the evidence to be taken in writing or by electronic recording device.
Similarly, section 362 states that where it appears to the court that a person who is seriously ill or hurt may not recover, but is able and willing to give material evidence relating to an offence and it is not practicable to take the evidence the during trial, the Judge or Magistrate shall take in writing the statement on oath or affirmation of the person. The Judge or Magistrate shall preserve the statement and file it for record.
Compensation to victims of crime
Victims of crimes are often neglected and left without any form of compensation even when the offender has been found guilty and sentenced. The ACJA has addressed this ugly trend by broadening the powers of the court to award costs, compensation and damages in deserving cases, especially to victims of crime. The Act adopted and improved on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
By the provisions of Section 319 of the ACJA, court may within the proceedings or when passing judgment, order the convict to pay compensation to any person injured by the offence, irrespective of any other fine or other punishment that may be imposed or that is imposed on the defendant, where substantial compensation is in the opinion of the court recoverable by civil suit. The court may order the defendant to pay a sum of money to defray expenses incurred in the prosecution. The court may also order the convict to pay compensation to an innocent purchaser of any property in respect of which the offence has been committed who has been compelled to give it up. The court may also order the convicted person to pay some money in defraying expenses incurred in medical treatment of any person injured by the convict in connection with the offence.
Non-Custodial sentences
The ACJAin Sections 453, 460 and 468 attempted to address the problem of excessive use of imprisonment as a disposal method by introducing some alternatives to imprisonment. These include the introduction of suspended sentence, community service, parole and probation. It also provides that the court, in exercising its power shall have regard to the need to: (a) reduce congestion in prisons; (b) rehabilitate prisoners by making them to undertake productive work; and (c) prevent convicts who commit simple offences from mixing with hardened criminals.
By virtue of 467 courts may sentence and order a convict to serve the sentence at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre established by the Federal Government in lieu of imprisonment. The court in making an order of confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre shall have regard to the age of the convict; the fact that the convict is a first offender; and any other relevant circumstances necessitating an order of confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre.
The section further provides that the court may make an order directing that a child standing criminal trial be remanded at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre.
Service of court processes by courier companies
This is another innovative provision in the ACJA which states that service of court processes may be effected by registered reputable courier companies, recognised and authorised by the Chief Judge. This is to ensure that service of court processes is handled by professionals for efficient delivery of service.
Establishment of monitoring committee
Section 469 of the ACJAestablished a body to be known as the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee. Its membership is made up of the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system. By the provision of Section 470, the Committee is to ensure that: (a) criminal matters are speedily dealt with; (b) congestion of criminal cases in courts is drastically reduced; (c) congestion in prisons is reduced to the barest minimum; (d) persons awaiting trial are, as far as possible, not detained in prison custody; (e) the relationship between the organs charged with the responsibility for all aspects of the administration of justice is cordial and there exists maximum co-operation amongst the organs in the administration of justice in Nigeria; (f) collate, analyse and publish information in relation to the administration of criminal justice sector in Nigeria; and (g) submit report quarterly to the Chief Justice of Nigeria to keep the Chief Justice abreast of developments towards improved criminal justice delivery and for necessary action; (h) carry out such other activities as are necessary for the effective and efficient administration of criminal justice.
Conclusion
One of the major improvements brought about generally by the reforms is that conscious effort was made to strengthen the rights of the defendant and reduce delays in the criminal process. Though most of these rights had existed before now, the ACJA 2015 has added emphasis to them and has also ironed out a lot or grey areas that had been long overdue for change. With the passage of this Act, the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Administration of Justice Commission Act stand repealed.
Criminal procedure in Nigeria is governed by two principal legislations which were handed down to us by the British Colonial Administration, namely: the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA)1 and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)2. Each state in Nigeria has either adopted the CPA or the CPC. These laws have been applied for many decades without significant improvement. As a result, the criminal justice system has lost its capacity to respond quickly to the needs of the society to check the rising waves of crime, speedily bring criminals to book and protect the victims of crime. The ACJA2015 responds to Nigeria’s dire need of a new legislation that will transform the criminal justice system to reflect the true intents of the Constitution and the demands of a democratic society, eliminate unacceptable delays in disposing of criminal cases and improve the efficiency of criminal justice administration in the country. Indeed the Buhari Administration should urgently commence the implementation of the ACJA to prosecute its campaign against corruption and allied crimes.
The provisions for the reform of Administration of Criminal Justice were first developed in 2005 by the National Working Group on the Reform of Criminal Justice in Nigeria. The Group which was established by the then Hon. Attorney-General of the Federation Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN was maintained by his successor, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN. The Group consisted of individuals drawn from all segments of the criminal justice sector. The immediate Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN upon assumption established the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR) in 2011to implement the proposals for reform produced by the National Working Group under the earlier administrations. The Panel conducted a detailed review of the proposals, brought them up-to-date and adopted an improved version.
The ACJ proposals merged the provisions of the two principal legislations, CPA and CPC into one principal federal Act which is intended to apply uniformly in all federal courts across the entire Federation. Substantially, it preserves the existing criminal procedures. But it introduces new innovative provisions that will enhance the efficiency of the justice system. In other words the ACJA 2015 builds upon the existing framework of criminal justice administration in the country. However, it fills the gaps observed in these laws over the course of several decades. The contents as revised and updated by the Panel on Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR), with the support of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies have now been enacted into law. The House of Representatives have turned the proposals to a Act and passed them wholly into law.
Purposes of the Act
The main purposes of the ACJ Act (ACJA) 2015 include the following: To promote efficient management of criminal justice institutions and speedy dispensation of justice, protect the society from crime, and Protect the rights and the interest of the defendant and the victim. The purposes of the ACJ Act are captured in section 1 of the Act. These indicate a deliberate shift from punishment as the main goal of the criminal justice to restorative justice which pays attention to the needs of the society, the victims, vulnerable persons and human dignity.
The general provisions of the ACJ Act apply to criminal trial in court except where express provision is made in the Act or in any other law in respect of any particular court or form of trial. Specifically, section 2 of the Act provides that its provision shall not apply to a Court Martial.
Unlawful Arrests
Unlawful arrest is one of the major problems of our criminal process and it is one of the reasons why police stations and prisons are overcrowded. Arrests are sometimes made on allegation that are purely civil in nature or on a frivolous ground. By section 10(1) of the CPA, the police could arrest without a warrant, any person who has no ostensible means of sustenance and who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. This particular provision has been greatly abused by the police who use it as a ground to arrest people indiscriminately. The ACJ Act has deleted this provision.
There have been several instances where the police arrested relations or friends and close associate of a crime suspect to compel the suspect to give himself up even though that person is not linked in any way to the crime the suspect is being accused of. Section 7 of the ACJ Act specifically prohibits arrest in lieu.
Apart from the police, other agencies vested with power of arrest e.g. the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), etc had abused this power to arrest and detain relatives and close associates of criminal suspect in lieu of the suspects where they had challenges in apprehending the suspects. Section 7 should curtail this kind of abuses.
Notification of cause of arrest
Sections 5 of the CPA and 38 of the CPC provide that a police officer or a person making an arrest is to inform the arrested person of the reason for the arrest, except where he is being arrested in course of the commission of the offence or is pursued immediately after the commission of the offence or escaped from lawful custody. It has been argued that this provision falls short of the contemporary requirement3. The ACJ Act 2015 retains this provision in section 6. However there is a proviso which mandates the police officer or any other person to inform the suspect of his right to: (a) remain silent or avoid answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his own choice; (b) consult a legal practitioner of his choice before making, endorsing or writing any statement or answering any question put to him after arrest; (c) free legal representation by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria where applicable.
This provision re-affirms section 35(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides that any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to remain silent or answering any question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his choice.
It is necessary to state here that the proviso in section 6 (2) is quite laudable since the suspect will have the benefit of not only being informed of the offence he has committed but also an additional advantage of counsel assisting in securing his immediate release on bail and ensuring that trial is expeditious. This would in turn prevent prolonged detention of suspects and hopefully bring about decongestion of the prisons.
Humane treatment of an arrested Person and prohibition of arrest on civil cases
The ACJ Act 2015 reiterated the human right constitutional provision of the right to dignity of person. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that: a suspect shall- (a) be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to the dignity of his person. (b) Not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 8 (2) deals with the longstanding problem whereby people employ the machinery of criminal justice wrongly for civil matters. It is not uncommon for people to maliciously instigate the arrest and detention of others for a breach of contract, failure to pay debt owed or for other civil wrongs. This provision that “a suspect shall not be arrested merely on a civil wrong or breach of contract.” is a laudable one. It is believed that it would check arbitrary arrest of persons and torture by law enforcement and security agencies.
Mandatory Inventory of Property
In order to encourage accountability and transparency, the ACJ Act introduced in section 10 a provision which states that a police officer making an arrest or to whom a private person hands over a suspect, shall take an inventory of all items or properties recovered from the suspect. The inventory must be duly signed by the police officer and the suspect. However, where the suspect refuses to sign, it shall not invalidate the inventory. This provision also directs that a copy of the inventory shall be given to the suspect, his legal practitioner, or such other person as the suspect may direct.
This provision permits the police to release such property upon request by either the owner of the property or parties having interest in the property pending the arraignment of the suspect before a Court. Where a police officer refuses to release the property to the owner or any person having interest in the property, the police officer shall make a report to the court of the fact of the property taken from the arrested suspect and the particulars of the property.
It is now entirely for the court to decide whether to release the property or any portion of it in the interest of justice to the safe custody of the owner or person having interest in the property. This provision further provides that where any property has been taken from a suspect in section 10 of the ACJ Act, and the suspect is not charged before a court but is released on the ground that there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed an offence, any property taken from the suspect shall be returned to him, provided the property is neither connected to nor a proceed of crime.
Recording of Arrest
The ACJ Act makes provisions for mandatory record of personal data of an arrested Person. This is contained in section 15 of the Act. Such personal data of the arrested person shall include:
(a) the alleged offence(s);
(b) the date and circumstances of the arrest;
(c) name, occupation and residential address of the suspect; and
(d) the suspect’s identification which include his height, photograph, fingerprint impressions, or such other means of identification.
Subsection 2 of section 15, further provides that the process of recording shall be concluded within a reasonable time, not exceeding forty-eight hours. This is intended to check prolong pre-trial detention in the guise of recording the personal data of the arrested person.
Establishment of a Police Central Criminal Registry
Section 16(1) of the ACJ Act makes provision for the establishment, within the Nigeria Police, a Central Criminal Record Registry. Subsection 2 of section 16 provides that there shall be established at every state police command, a Criminal Records Registry which shall keep and transmit all such records to the Central Criminal Records Registry.
Subsection 3 mandates the Chief Registrar of the courts to transmit the decisions of the court in all criminal trials to the Central Criminal Records Registry within thirty-days after delivery of judgment. Where there is default by the Chief Registrar to transmit records within thirty days after judgment, he shall be liable to disciplinary measures by the Federal Judicial Service Commission for misconduct.
The establishment of Central Criminal Record Registry will ensure that all arrests and judgments are well documented. This is intended to avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of Agbi v. Ibori4. The central figure in this case was Chief James OnanefeIbori, the then Governor of Delta State. At the time of commencement of this action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja he was a candidate for the 2003 general elections. In an action before the said High Court two persons suing as Plaintiffs began a joint action to challenge Ibori’s qualification to stand as a gubernatorial candidate for the 2003 election having been an ex-convict. The action did not succeed before the High Court, however on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court in a unanimous judgment allowed the appeal of the Plaintiffs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered that the case be heard afresh by another Judge of the High Court.
The proceedings commenced at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and one of the main issues was whether the record of proceedings of Bwari Upper Area Court in case N0. CK 81-95 (Exhibit A) wherein one James OnanfeIbori was convicted was sufficient to act against the 5th Defendant/Appellant (James OnanfeIbori) as an ex-convict. During the trial the Area Court Judge came to court and testified that James OnanfeIbori was an ex-convict. James OnanfeIbori on the other hand, contented that Exhibit A did not conform to section 157 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court gave judgment in favour of James OnanfeIbori and the matter was dismissed.
With the new provision in the ACJ Act, cases like this would no longer pose a major problem as there would be sufficient information on all convicted persons which would make it easy to identify them in subsequent proceedings.
Electronic recording of confessional statement
Section 15(4) of the Act provides that where a person arrested with or without a warrant of arrest volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall record the statement in writing or may record the making of the confessional statement electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means. Subsection (5) of section 15 provides that notwithstanding the provision of subsection (4), an oral confession of arrested suspect shall be admissible in evidence. This provision of the ACJ Act conforms to the position of the law as contained in the Evidence Act.
Receive evidence by video link. (b) permit the witness to be screened or masked. (c) receive written deposition of expert evidence. (d) any other measure that the court considers appropriate in the circumstance.
The Act also stipulates that anyone who contravenes the provisions of section 232 shall be sentenced to a minimum term of one year imprisonment.
Electronic Record of proceedings
Section 364 provides the legislative backing for court proceedings to be recorded electronically. It states that in certain exceptional circumstances, where the evidence of a technical, professional or expert witness would not ordinarily be contentious as to require cross-examination, the court may grant leave for the evidence to be taken in writing or by electronic recording device.
Similarly, section 362 states that where it appears to the court that a person who is seriously ill or hurt may not recover, but is able and willing to give material evidence relating to an offence and it is not practicable to take the evidence the during trial, the Judge or Magistrate shall take in writing the statement on oath or affirmation of the person. The Judge or Magistrate shall preserve the statement and file it for record.
Compensation to victims of crime
Victims of crimes are often neglected and left without any form of compensation even when the offender has been found guilty and sentenced. The ACJA has addressed this ugly trend by broadening the powers of the court to award costs, compensation and damages in deserving cases, especially to victims of crime. The Act adopted and improved on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
By the provisions of Section 319 of the ACJA, court may within the proceedings or when passing judgment, order the convict to pay compensation to any person injured by the offence, irrespective of any other fine or other punishment that may be imposed or that is imposed on the defendant, where substantial compensation is in the opinion of the court recoverable by civil suit. The court may order the defendant to pay a sum of money to defray expenses incurred in the prosecution. The court may also order the convict to pay compensation to an innocent purchaser of any property in respect of which the offence has been committed who has been compelled to give it up. The court may also order the convicted person to pay some money in defraying expenses incurred in medical treatment of any person injured by the convict in connection with the offence.
Non-Custodial sentences
The ACJAin Sections 453, 460 and 468 attempted to address the problem of excessive use of imprisonment as a disposal method by introducing some alternatives to imprisonment. These include the introduction of suspended sentence, community service, parole and probation. It also provides that the court, in exercising its power shall have regard to the need to: (a) reduce congestion in prisons; (b) rehabilitate prisoners by making them to undertake productive work; and (c) prevent convicts who commit simple offences from mixing with hardened criminals.
By virtue of 467 courts may sentence and order a convict to serve the sentence at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre established by the Federal Government in lieu of imprisonment. The court in making an order of confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre shall have regard to the age of the convict; the fact that the convict is a first offender; and any other relevant circumstances necessitating an order of confinement at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre.
The section further provides that the court may make an order directing that a child standing criminal trial be remanded at a Rehabilitation and Correctional Centre.
Service of court processes by courier companies
This is another innovative provision in the ACJA which states that service of court processes may be effected by registered reputable courier companies, recognised and authorised by the Chief Judge. This is to ensure that service of court processes is handled by professionals for efficient delivery of service.
Establishment of monitoring committee
Section 469 of the ACJAestablished a body to be known as the Administration of Criminal Justice Monitoring Committee. Its membership is made up of the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system. By the provision of Section 470, the Committee is to ensure that: (a) criminal matters are speedily dealt with; (b) congestion of criminal cases in courts is drastically reduced; (c) congestion in prisons is reduced to the barest minimum; (d) persons awaiting trial are, as far as possible, not detained in prison custody; (e) the relationship between the organs charged with the responsibility for all aspects of the administration of justice is cordial and there exists maximum co-operation amongst the organs in the administration of justice in Nigeria; (f) collate, analyse and publish information in relation to the administration of criminal justice sector in Nigeria; and (g) submit report quarterly to the Chief Justice of Nigeria to keep the Chief Justice abreast of developments towards improved criminal justice delivery and for necessary action; (h) carry out such other activities as are necessary for the effective and efficient administration of criminal justice.
Conclusion
One of the major improvements brought about generally by the reforms is that conscious effort was made to strengthen the rights of the defendant and reduce delays in the criminal process. Though most of these rights had existed before now, the ACJA 2015 has added emphasis to them and has also ironed out a lot or grey areas that had been long overdue for change. With the passage of this Act, the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Administration of Justice Commission Act stand repealed.
Comments
Post a Comment