Introduction

A common belief and view held among the legal practitioners, and perhaps some other members of the Nigerian society, is that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) is only applicable to criminal proceedings in all Federal and FCT courts. In other words, it is being propagated that the Act does not apply to criminal proceedings in any state court. Reliance seems to have been placed for this popular belief on Section 2 of the Act which declares that: “Without prejudice to section 86 of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall apply to criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”. This article demonstrates that even though on another legal basis, rather than on the basis of section 2 popularly relied upon, the Act does not truly apply to State courts, the Act itself, contrary to the popular belief, extends its application to state courts to a certain extent. However, what makes it eventually inapplicable to state courts is a constitutional challenge that confronted its self-extension of its application to such state courts and not on the basis of section 2 of the Act as popularly projected.

Federal and FCT Courts for the Purpose of ACJA

The Federal Courts with trial criminal jurisdiction, as constitutionally stipulated, are the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the National Industrial Court [See Chapter VII, Part I and 254C (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered)]. As from May 2015, these trial criminal courts have been regulated in their practice and proceedings by the ACJA. This is the purport of section 2 as earlier quoted above. The Interpretation Section of ACJA [Section 494] also gives no rooms for doubts on application of its provisions to all these courts. Thus, “court” as used in the Act connotes “Federal Courts and Magistrates’ Court” and “High Court” means “Federal High or High Court of the Federal Capital Territory”[Section 494 (1), ACJA]. In view of the provision of section 494 which though defines “court” to mean “Federal Courts and Magistrate Courts” and further defines what “Magistrates’ Courts” connotes without however giving any specific interpretation to “Federal Courts”, it remains open to presume that other federal courts exercising criminal jurisdiction, by whatever name it might be called such as Court Martial and Code of Conduct Tribunal would also have the Act apply to them. On another look however, given separate meanings and usages of “Court” and “Tribunal”, it may not be all that conclusive that “federal courts” would cover other pseudo-judicial bodies like Tribunals. The Constitution distinguishes “a court of law” from “a tribunal” [see section 315 (3), 1999 Constitution of Nigeria].

Therefore, what is more reasonable is to take it that once any federal institution, performing judicial function, is not a court, application of ACJA to it may be questionable. Thus, to avoid invoking ACJA before the Court Martial, being a federal court, ACJA declares that its provisions shall not apply to “Court Martial” [section 2 (1)]. As earlier mentioned; there are clear distinctions between “federal courts and federal tribunals” and except where a particular Act interprets one to mean the other, none can be interpreted to mean the other. Certainly, “in interpreting the provisions of a statute, it is the duty of the judge to give words their plain meanings as understood in common language and not introduce his own words” [Asheik v. Yale (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 625) 297 at 307 paras G-H]. It is not open for arguments that “in common language”, “court” is not the same as “tribunal”. More still, the Constitution is very clear about what the federal courts are and they are not in any way declared to include “federal tribunals” [see section 6 (1) and (5) and Chapter VII, Part I, 1999 Constitution]. At most, such federal courts, even if not yet in existence, could cover “such other courts as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws” [section 6 (5) (j)]. In this regard, the legality of the application of ACJA in proceedings before the Code of Conduct Tribunal still very much opens for further scrutiny.

Relevance of ACJA to State Courts: A Refutation of the Popular Belief
As already noted, the popular view on the application of ACJA in the country is that it is restricted to federal and FCT courts alone and not extended to proceedings before state courts. However, an inquisitive search on the proper interpretation of the words “offences established by an Act of the National Assembly” in section 2 of ACJA may lead one to contend this popular view. This is because criminal courts at the State Level also exercise jurisdiction in some “offences established by an Act of the National Assembly”. Notable of these state courts are the State High Court, Magistrate’s Court and Area Courts. Area Courts exist in few States like Kwara, Kogi and Kaduna and they exercise criminal jurisdiction. For instance, section 18 of the Area Courts Law, CAP A9, Laws of Kwara State 2007 states that, “every Area Court shall have jurisdiction and power … in all civil and criminal cases in which all the parties are subject to the jurisdiction of such Area Court)”. The Constitution is very explicit on the power of the state courts to exercise jurisdiction in federal offences when it categorically declares that;

“…where by the Law of a State jurisdiction is conferred upon any court for the investigation, inquiry into, or trial of persons accused of offences against the Laws of the State and with respect to the hearing and determination of appeals arising out of any such trial or out of any proceedings connected therewith, the court shall have like jurisdiction with respect to the investigation, inquiry into, or trial of persons for Federal offences and the hearing and determination of appeals arising out of the trial or proceedings” [Section 286 (1) (b), 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria].

It can be inferred from the above constitutional provision that once any state court exercises criminal jurisdiction in any offence created under the State Law and similar offences are also created by the federal law, such court is competent to also assume jurisdiction in the federal offences. As defined in Section 286 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, federal offences are the offences contrary to the provisions of an Act of the National Assembly or any law having effect as if so enacted. Going by this, extension of the application of ACJA to “criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the National Assembly” may be taken to mean that ACJA also applies to such criminal trials for federal offences being prosecuted before state courts.

This certainly has the implication of disproving the popular impression already created on the restriction of ACJA to federal and FCT courts only.
Furthermore, by the interpretation section of ACJA [section 494], it is clear that while references to court in its provision mean “Federal Courts and the Magistrates’ Court” and what constitute federal courts as constitutionally understood would make application of ACJA impossible in state courts, the meaning of Magistrates’ Court seem to provide otherwise. Specifically, while the High Court to which ACJA applies merely refers to “the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory”, “Magistrates’ Court” means Magistrates’ Court established under the law of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory” just as reference to a Magistrate in the Act connote “a Magistrate appointed in accordance with the law of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory” [section 494 (1), ACJA]. By a proper understanding of all these interpretations, it can be argued that ACJA also applies to state courts to a certain extent.

Accordingly, ACJA would apply at the state level when all the following conditions are satisfied:

1. That the criminal trial before the state court is in offences established by an Act of the National Assembly;
2. That the trial is holding before a Magistrate’s Court established under the Law of the Relevant State.

What the above also reveals is that other than Magistrates’ Courts of States, ACJA would not apply before any other state court and even for it to apply before the state magistrate’s courts, the proceedings must involve trial for federal offences established by an Act of the National Assembly. Accordingly, application of ACJA, contrary to the popular belief, extends to state Magistrates’ Court in trials for federal offences established by an Act of the National Assembly.

However, from another angle, the extension of application of ACJA to state Magistrates Courts as construed from the combined interpretations of section 2 and 494 of ACJA seems to have some issues to settle with the Constitution. This is in view of the constitutional requirement that even where the state courts exercise jurisdiction in federal matters, whether civil or criminal, the jurisdiction “shall be exercised in conformity with the practice and procedure for the time being prescribed in relation to its jurisdiction over civil or criminal causes other than Federal causes”[ Section 286 (1), 1999 Constitution]. A major challenge posed to ACJA by this constitutional provision is that even though the earlier analysis has shown that ACJA applies to state Magistrates’ Courts in the trials of federal offences, that extension of ACJA to those state courts appear to be in conflict with this provision of the Constitution. The implication of this constitutional provision is that procedures to regulate state courts when they exercise jurisdiction in federal matters are the same procedures that regulate them when they adjudicate upon similar matters that emanate from the State laws.

It therefore follows that the provisions of ACJA extending its application to state Magistrates’ Courts are unconstitutional and therefore null and void to the extent of their inconsistency with this provision of the Constitution. After all, if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void [Section 1 (3), 1999 Constitution].

Conclusion

Following the foregoing analysis, it can be safely concluded that even though, contrary to the popular belief, ACJA makes itself applicable to state Magistrates’ Courts in federal offences proceedings, its provision in that regard is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the present legal regime does not yet found any legality for application of ACJA at the state level. This is however not because ACJA limits its own application to federal and FCT courts alone, as erroneously popularly propagated, but rather because its provision extending its application to state Magistrates’ Court is unconstitutional and therefore null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the provision of the Constitution.

Abdullahi Saliu Ishola
PhD Candidate, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws
International Islamic University Malaysia
Lecturer, Department of Law
Kwara State University Malete – Nigeria
asishola1@gmail.com

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)

Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.