Court Security: A Vehicle For The Dispensation Of Justice In Nigeria By Ebi Robert

The judiciary is believed to be the Last hope of the common man. This is because, for the executive to act on the determination of the rights of any citizen in a democratic society, Audi Alterem Partem must not be ignored, and the Judiciary is but the umpire to determine the status of such an accused person in question.

The right to fair hearing is absolute under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended (hereinafter referred to as CFRN). It is provided for under S. 36 and has been affirmed in numerous cases such the case of Palawa v. Jatau. [2003] FWLR (pt. 164) 228 and Odessa v. FRN [2005] ALL FWLR (pt.282) 2010, amongst others.

The power of the court to interpret the Law on the determination of one’s right and otherwise is provided in S. 6 of the CFRN. For this discourse, we shall be considering few sub-sections in S.6. S. 6 (1) provides that the judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation. Subsection 2 on the other hand provides that the judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State. The section goes further to state superior courts of record vested with this judicial power. The power of the judiciary also extends to other inferior courts of records as established by the Laws of the state as empowered by the constitution. Subsection 6 of the said section inter alia states as follows:

(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section –

(a) Shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law
(b) Shall extend, to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and
Proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person;

The independence of the Judiciary as provided in Section 17 (1) (e) of the CFRN is imperative for the administration of justice in our society, and as such, not to be threatened in anyway. In the Supreme Court‘s case of Addulkarim v. Incar nig. Ltd. (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 251) 1. Per Nnaemeka Agu. JSC., observed the concept of judicial review to be on the stand points of three processes, viz: (1) The Courts particularly the supreme court, ensuring that every arm of government plays its role in the true spirit of the principles of separation of powers as provided for in the constitution; (2) that every public functionary performs his functions according to law, including the constitution and, (3) for the supreme court, that it reviews court decision including its own, when the need arises in order to ensure that the country does not suffer under the same regime of obsolete or wrong decisions. The last angle of the three perspective of judicial review emphasis the need for the protection of the rights of members of the society, and this, the court has to uphold by reviewing its own decisions perhaps when given per incuriam. Also decisions of the court can be reviewed that are not given per incuriam in so far, the dynamic state of the society demands for it. Although the independence of the judiciary may not be tampered by any form of executive interference, it is pertinent to state that factors other than executive extremism may affect the smooth administration of justice in Nigeria. One of it is the “Security of the Court Room’’, most precisely of the bench.

The power to secure Lives and property at least so far as internal disturbance of major and petty crimes are concerned is vested in the Nigerian police and other Security Agencies. S. 4 of the Police Act, is to the effect that the police is to prevent and detect crime.

The National Security Act, 1986 also vests similar powers on the Defence Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Agency and the State Security Service. In line with the power granted the Security agencies to prevent and detect crime as well as to investigate and prosecute crime, suspected criminal or prisoners as the case may be, must be brought before the court within a reasonable period of time as provided by S. 35 (4) (5) of the constitution vis a vis S. 17 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State.

Section 6 of the Prisoners Act, 1972, provides for the power of the court to order for the production of a prisoners undergoing trial before the court. However, once again it is asked differently, how protected is the court when sitting to try a matter before it? In other to protect the court, some jurisdictions have enacted laws that are intended to protect the court for the smooth administration of justice. For instance, the Authorized Version No. 033; Court Security Act 1980, No. 9499 of 1980 (Authorized Version incorporating amendments as at 1 April 2015) of Australia herein referred to as ACSA, deals inter alia with the protection of the court during sittings. In the definition section of the ACSA, court premises is defined to mean—

(a) Any premises occupied in connection with the operations of a court, including—
(i) the precincts and immediate environs of those premises, adjacent car parks, adjacent footpaths and laneways between or abutting court premises; and
(ii) Court buildings and the exit and entry points and steps to those buildings; or
(b) any other place, limited to where a court is, for the time being, constituted and performing the functions or exercising the powers of that court or in connection with court operations, including any area in the immediate vicinity of that place;
Section 3A of the ASCA states that the Chief Commissioner of Police must— (a) Direct that a sufficient number of police officers be present to keep order on court premises at all sittings of—
(i) The Supreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction; and (ii) The County Court in its criminal jurisdiction; and (b) At the request of the judge presiding at a particular sitting of a court referred to in paragraph (a) direct that an additional number of police officers be present at that sitting.

The Act goes further to prevent private recording of proceedings except as allowed in the exceptions which includes where a person is authorized to do so by way of the Victoria court services via proceeding transcript enablement or the media, subject however to the directions of a judicial officer as defined under the Victoria police Act, 2013. Violation of the provision goes with penalties. Among other things, an authorized officer is permitted under the Law to know the identity of persons entering court premises and the reason of the visit. All manner of searches including frisk search is to be conducted on persons entering the court premises as given under the ACSA.

New Zealand also has similar Law that provides for security of courts and the safety of the public and others who access and use the courts. It is known as the Courts Security Act 1999. The Law provides for the regulation of the contracting of Court officers as well as their powers which include power to ask for identification, power to search which includes scanning search, power to ask to examine detected items and power to seize detected items. S. 31 of the Act goes further to grant immunity like that of a constable to such officers in the exercise of their duties in line with certain sections of the Act. S. 32 then extents immunity to also persons who helps such security officers in the exercise of his or her duty, in so far he or she acts in good faith. The above provisions emphasize the importance of the security of the court during sittings considering the nature of the job of the court.

Judges, jurists and umpire alike, may be seen as some demi-gods, but it must be noted that they are also humans with flesh and blood and citizens as well that are entitled to the protection of their lives. Harris, Kirschner, rozer, & Weiner’s in Violence in the judicial Workplace: One state’s Experience, 576 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 38, 42 (2001) records a study of Pennsylvanian judges that shows that over a 20 years career, that there is a probability at least of 31 percent that district judges would likely be assaulted and attacked. This is the record done in the US where crime rate at least is better reduced as compared to the Nigerian Jurisdiction.

Crime is a menace that causes chaos in the society. Crime basically causes a kind of halt in the free human behavioural pattern in the society as it leads to underdevelopment of the society, constant phobia of the unknown. While Hedonic calculus (Felicific calculus) seem to be defeated because of societal failure to consider the pain and pleasure of their actions which in turn affects the sociological atmosphere of the society which includes judges as social beings, the fact that judges are saddled with the responsibility of pronouncing sentences on the supposed suspected criminals when Hedonic fails, put them in the position of the need of much security advantage.

Recently, the judicial community in Nigeria had had experiences of the attacks on Court settlements which have made many to be worried about the security of the court premises and the lives of judges in the administration of justice in Nigeria. On or around May, 2016, Hoodlums were reported to have invaded Rivers judiciary Complex, killing two persons in the attack. Many were reported to have escape for fear of death. In November, 2016, an attack of the courts in Benue was reported were many case files were taken away. Leadership Today on February, 2016 also reported a case where hoodlums invaded the Imo State Magistrates’ Court III for refusing to grant bail to one David Ndulo. Most recently, a case of one notorious criminal by name Vampire was reported. According to reports by Daily Trust, and other newspapers, on the 27th of January, 2017 some hoodlums suspected to be loyalties to one Vampire also described as King of the underworld, attacked the Owerri High court in Imo state, leading to the killing of some persons while others sustained injury. These and many more are examples of various attacks on the courts in Nigeria which poses a threat to the life and existence of the Judiciary (Court premises) in Nigeria. In most cases these attacks are done by loyalties of suspected criminals with serious criminal records. These criminals range from rapist, to killers to kidnappers, etc whose presence in court should not be taken for granted by any responsible government, because they are criminally minded and as such, made up their mind for the worse if necessary.

The issue of courtroom security has been given judicial recognition, in that accused persons can even be shackled in manacles or something of such in so far as such shackling is essential for state interest, that is to say Court Security. In the case of Deck v. Missouri, [No. 04-5293] 544 U.S. 622 (2005), one Deck the accused was indicted for robbery and the murder of an elderly couple. During trial the said Deck was shackled and this was objected to by Deck through his counsel stating that the act violated both Missouri law and the US Federal Constitution. The court held that as follows:

“We here consider whether shackling a convicted offender during the penalty phase of a capital case violates the Federal Constitution. We hold that the Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during the penalty phase, as it forbids their use during the guilt phase, unless that use is “justified by an essential state interest” such as the interest in courtroom security- specific to the defendant on trial”

The court affirmed a special courtroom security arrangement that involved having uniformed security personnel sit in the first row of the courtroom’s spectator section, and that the constitution allowed the arrangement stating that the deployment of security personnel during trail is not “the sort of inherently prejudicial practice that, like shackling, would be permitted only where justified by an essential state interest to each trial.” Although the court first considered, beyond the fundamental principles of the US constitution, the position of Common Law of England flowing from the Balckstone’s view with respect to a convicted person’s right to be free from manacles before the court. Fact is, an exception which operates as a last resort was not done away with, not by Blackstone himself. It is not novel that the common law positions cited before the court may be relied on by the Nigerian court having being received into the Nigeria Legal system following the reception clause. The court was emphatic when it concluded that tragedy may befall the judges and courtroom if not protected. According to Justice Beyer who gave the leading opinion, he said: “We are mindful of the tragedy that can result if judges are not able to protect themselves and their courtrooms. ….”

In the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas in whom Scalia joins, the court affirmed the 1999 case in Berks County, Pennsylvania, where a defendant forced his way to the bench and beat the judge unconscious. The court went further to state that judges are not the only ones who face the risk of violence. Sheriffs and courtroom bailiffs face the second highest rate of homicide in the workplace, a rate which is 15 times higher than the national average. Similar items in the Deck’s case was also raised in the Flynn’s case [No. 84-1606.] 475 U.S. 560 (1986) where the issue of uniformed troopers and the committing squad was discussed. The court affirmed among others, the need for Court security during trial.

As earlier asserted, the fact that judges are saddled with the responsibility of pronouncing sentences on the supposed suspected criminals put them in the position of being entitled to security protection. By this I mean the court and judges’ premises. This is why some countries have the Court Security Acts that go a step further to give the security of the court a legislative and judicial backing as seen in the Deck’s case. Although Judges are entitled to some security agents which is more or less a conventional practice, also, security officers do well as ordered to guard the court premises when trials are going on. It is worthy of note that more is expected to be done for the protection of the judges and the court, most especially when a hardened criminal or a suspected criminal of a threatening criminal records is tried by the court, as even the ASCA did not miss words when criminal trial was specifically was mentioned. No doubt, because of the peculiar nature of criminal trials.

Thus, it is the humble submission of the writer that the number of security officers assigned to each judges be increased in Nigeria for adequate protection. Also, the court in Nigeria should be strongly armed with security persons so that judges and the court in general would feel save in the dispensation of justice in Nigeria. To achieve this, it is advised that the National Assembly of Nigeria enact a Court Security Act after the pattern of New Zealand and Australia with little modifications here and there to specifically deal with the security issues of the Nigerian Courts. This is owing to the fact that such Law is not anywhere found in Law of the Federation, 2004, unless it is one of those Laws omitted in the federal collection. If this is done and well implemented, our court rooms shall be better secured.

* Ebinabo Robert Fortune, num be plume, Ebi Robert is a Human Right Activist and a graduate of Law of the Niger Delta University. He is an author and the acting director of the Peace December Nigeria, Bayelsa State Chapter. The writer can be reached at ebi.fortune@yahoo.com. Blog: www.ebirobert.blogspot.com