 Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, Bactrax and Blaming of Judiciary for Delating High Proof or Corruption Cases and Field-Novan Presidential Candidate, Lose Election, Gavna Rotimi Akkadalu Threatens. This is Plus Politics and I am Justin Akadone. Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami has backtracked on his blame of the judiciary for the delays suffered in court by high-profile corruption cases. This development comes about 48 hours after Malami completely exonerated the executive arm of government from the problems of delays as he had the scrap eat as entirely a judicial affair. Now his retraction, however, not come not this coming until about 24 hours after the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tango Mohammed, issued a rebutto with references to how the executive arm of government was contributing to the problem. While not exonerating the judiciary in the delays of such cases, Mohammed pointed out various ways the executive arm of government was contributing to the problem. Joining us to discuss this is Legal Practitioner Deji Awobidi. Thanks for joining us on Plus Politics tonight. All right, you have followed the series of events from who is responsible to a backtrack by the Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami. Let me just put it to you point blank as it is right now. Would you really agree with the Minister if he said, when he said that the judiciary was actually the cause of the delays of high-profile cases in Nigeria? Well, I think that there's a lot of blame to go around. The backup between the AGF and the CJN barely just shows that there's a lot of outpouring that needs to be done. But firstly, the executive arm of government has the agency that investigates and prosecutes. In terms of you have the ASCC, for instance, will investigate commission of financial clients and then ask the duty of using the lawyers to prosecute those particular parties. Now, what should they find is that if a shortage of results at the investigation stage, then it means that everything goes pale into what you necessarily have in terms of delay of criminal trials and all that stuff. For instance, if you compare the rate of conviction that the entity has recorded with ordinary Nigerians and defendants, you see something about the cause of conviction. But if you go again and look at the case, as a relation, you wouldn't see that you just conned with the rate of suspicion that you conned with ordinary Nigerians and political exposed persons. So the CJN is quite right when he said that the ASCC and the executive make you do a better job of investigating the crime. So if you do a profile investigation and you confront and defend them with the allegations, of course, what you then find is that they either plead by going as they have recorded in several instances, because when you confront the person with the evidence and it's overwhelming, then you will have the case where they plead by going and then they either confront some money and stand for a month in prison, depending on how the plead by going and then they won't work. But in the case where all you want to do is a media trial, you quickly have to call somebody, go with cameras, you have the phone call that goes with it, and then you are not able to prove the allegations on your confidentiality, then you have to make a multiple deal process. And do not forget that these political exposed persons have access to the best lawyers. Now this particular access to the lawyers and the best possible that depends is also experienced in that constitution. In fact, the 6th of 6th provides that if you defend them, must be given adequate time and facilities for the separation of the defense. So if a person is arrested, you need to give him time to assemble the best lawyers and look at the best way possible to beat the counts that are being leveled against. So that's why you find that this political exposed person has the cases dragged off for years, because you also find that these lawyers are also able to identify the technicalities involved in these cases. So you have that with Sarakis for instance, and you've had that with several other cases where as a result of the errors of the prosecution, the defense has capitalized them. They've taken the case all through the hierarchy of course, and they've come back with rearrangements. So that's why the CGM was right when it mentioned that the deputiveness to do a better job of investigating these crimes before they now parry the defendants and the defendant media to other problems. All right, so if I got you correctly, if I have to infer from all that you have said, it is a thing of lack of preparedness on the part of the institutions who prosecute those crimes that is the EFCC, the ICPC, or even the police as it were in some cases. So why would you really think that they would just want to go to court when they don't really have enough evidence, they don't have enough grounds to give them a proper day in court? Or is it just the thing that they want to show that they are working or something? Well, I think it's a mixture of both. Because most times, don't forget that whoever heads that agency is an appointee of the president of the deputy government. So they are there specifically to do the bidding of whoever appointed them. But ideally, in center clients where you have independence of this agency, you could have the head of that agency refuse to prosecute any person who's opposed to the government. But what will happen in this climate is that if the president or anybody in government that wields animal power once the president prosecuted, then the agency has to find a way or an answer to prosecute that person. So that's why you'll find that they quickly rush to court and pervade the defendants. And years after, they are unable to even prove all sounds. For instance, the Samuel D'Azuki has been in the custody of the EFCC or whoever, I don't even know who is keeping him now, but he's been there since this government attended on to power. And also now, it seems to be nowhere in time. They have been judged by the EFCC, there have been several orders directed at the deputy, and that it is difficult to obey. And that's why when the CGM said that the judiciary doesn't have the power to order, it was talking from a place of fate. Because if the judiciary cannot enforce the order in the mix, it has to depend on the deputy to enforce it. Then the judiciary becomes helpless when the deputy is not playing according to the rules. If a person orders a particular action, the deputy should lend the entire way to the imprisonment of that particular order. But what you'll find is that they select the ones who implement it. So why they want to implement the particular one, which defy favorable. They quickly implement it. Why they find that it's unfavorable. They do, I think they have to send the order. So that's why the CGM made the point that the negative issue, we won't look a word in terms of laying blame. Because the blame largely lies with them. I'm not saying that the judiciary is pretty blameless. Of course, we have cases of adjournment, of course, but it's in for power because of the law. And every other thing that the defendants would exploit. So those things are there. But by and large, if the deputy does his job properly, through his agency, ICPC, the police, then there's little room for error. There's even little room for maneuvering. Because what's opposed normally is if you invite a defendant that, oh, there's a particular complaint against you, the defendant comes to the station of an agency, is committed with a particular fact. Of course, if those factors are true and confirmed, you have witnesses, you have criminal testimony, all that will be shown to the defendant. There's no room for maneuvering. So the person throws his hands up and says, okay, I did this. All right. All right, I will be fine. We have mentioned all of the issues are varying on the part of the executive. You also pinpointed some that should be dropped on the shoulders of the judiciary, but it is right now. We need to see speedy dispensation of justice in the country. We need to see those who have offended in the due time. So just how to begin to circumvent all of that, to be sure that we have a judiciary that we can be proud of, when Nigerians can know that justice can indeed be seen to have been done in the country. How do we move around all of this? I know the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature, they're not supposed to be best bodies as it were. They're supposed to be some sort of checks and balances. But how do we ensure some sort of sanity so that Nigerians can actually begin to see that justice is served and those criminals who loot the commonwealth of the nations are brought to book? Well, I think there has to be some sort of synergy between the executive arm of government and the judiciary. Well, the good thing is that there have been conversations ongoing. The judicial reform, the reform of our economic system are issues that are thought and censored and that you have to show that it costs excessively. I think the issue will not be over night, but block by block, block by block, I think we will get there. Now, what needs to be done is that the autos that have been placed in our penalty system need to be removed. For instance, the reliance of technicality, which every defendants can sell as a right to exploit, needs to be removed. So all those issues that the government can fail to express autos and then come back, we need to better remove them. A good thing is that the ACJA has ensured that you cannot take even a proceeding. So all those objections are consistently raised at the point of reading the charge of arraignment are no longer fashionable because the law has corrected that. Now, also, the next stage needs to be the conclusion of investigation before arrest. Because we want to arrest the sentence and the news is all about the media. They are on the streets to expect that justice should be served. But why do you have to do the job of investigation properly? Then it's done on and on. So the judiciary also has no role to play. My assures are judging people regularly and they apply the law as it should be, dedicatedly to the job and with fidelity to the judiciary also very frequently. Corruption is also a gain of the problem and that we need to also find a way around removing or ending the corruption so that the principle is seamless and transparent. I would suggest that criminal trials should be televised so that everybody can have access to the proceedings. You can watch it on your social, on your phone, on your television, so that it is televised. So any errors that are made either by the constitution or by the judges is evident also. So the justice will not only be seen to be done, but everybody on the street would understand that the process is emotional and that at the end of the day, there's what the found wanting will serve their punishment. All right, Barista. Over time, there have been calls and renewed calls for special courts to try these cases of corruption and looters and for politically exposed persons in the country. How far do you think that can go? Is that the panacea that we are looking for? Well, I do not see special courts as panacea to the problem we are facing. And I say this because those judges have to be the heads of those special courts that will preside over those cases. I still want to be taken from the judiciary. The prosecutors, the investigators, the most necessary are still going to come from the same agency. So what has changed? It's not about just giving you the on the next nature, I still have a special court without addressing the major problem. If you fail to invest in it, you can have on the special court as soon as it's done a conviction. So it is important that the job is done the way it should be done, proper investigation before arrest. After the arrest, you are in. After the arrest, you go to trial. You must have a court. It's not that a case will come up. You have to be trained and taken to the court. And then the prosecutor says that the judge is not the new one. So what do you do at the judge? You are a prosecutor for the matter, but the witness is not the new one. Who is the judge, but the prosecutor is not the new one. I don't think so. This is similar to being the position of being given to the court, but the court is the city. So what happens? Everybody goes home. Manpower is wasted. Taxis and funds are wasted. So both sides have enough blame to go around, but it is a synergy that they need to find a way around that both of them need to work hand in hand to ensure that justice is served. There's no point having to go on for 10 years, nine years, or you go to the court and come back after 10 years. All of these issues are issues that the court would not solve. The issues are more on the mental than that. So after both sides find a way to come around, I'm going to go for 10 minutes to address this problem. We will still remember where we are. All right, Barista Adeji, I will be on the final note now before we let you go. What role do you think the bar has to play in all of this? Because at the risk of playing devil's advocate, some believe that lawyers or senior lawyers seem to know what is right. At the end of the day, they try to look for loopholes to make those cases get prolonged in court and get their clients out when they are actually indicted in some issues. Great question. Now, the problem that we have is that the constitution, which is the ground norm of all laws in Nigeria, provides is that a person is presumed innocent until proving guilty. In other words, what we operate in an adversarial system, which means that the constitution is guilty bound to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused person. So it is not for the accused person or the defendant to prove he's only looking. The purpose rests on the constitution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that that defendant is guilty of the crime. So that's why the constitution has a very serious role to play in resolving this problem. So any person that is out in order, there will be limited room for lawyers to maneuver. We cannot forget that I mentioned earlier that the fix of the constitution allows the defendant to be given adequate time and facilities for the defense of his criminal trial. So if a criminal suspect has been successful, the best thing to do is to put their best brains together to find a way out. And they would exploit every available loophole that is successful against the defendant. You would recall that Bola Metin Yungu was put before the court to have won the outcome from, but he got away on the technical ground and assembled the best in advocating in the country. So defend him. You can't regret the man who has the means to assemble the best brains possible. All right, thank you. Because just summarize your thoughts. You are about to conclude and go ahead please. Okay, yes. Thank you. So if the defendant who has the money to assemble the best brains possible, it's very much to do so. It is the job of the constitution to establish that it has the water type to convict the defendant. All right, thank you so much indeed that we have been speaking with from Barista Degi, I will be there. And he joined us to look at the topic for the day, Malamibak tracking and blaming of judiciary for delays in high profile corruption cases. We do appreciate your time, Barista, I will be there. Thank you very much. All right, thank you for staying with us. Nigeria and the Yandu will take a short break now and when we return, southern governors threaten political parties who feared no one candidate for the 2023 elections, more in a moment to join us again.