Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, added that the apex court issued a Federal High Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013, banning all courts from entertaining all forms of interlocutory applications in criminal cases. He said the practice direction was issued after the heads of Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Federal High Court met on the decision of a British Court, which convicted former Governor of Delta State, Mr. James Ibori, after a Federal High Court freed him on the basis of a preliminary objection his lead counsel, Mr. James Daudu, filed. Falana provided fresh information on how the Supreme Court banned all interlocutory applications in a statement he personally signed yesterday, noting that the federal government expressed concern over the manipulation of the legal system by politically exposed persons after the British Court sentenced Ibori. He had criticised a ruling of the apex court, which ordered the Code of Conduct Tribunal to stay proceedings in the ongoing trial of the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, over alleged false asset declaration contrary to sections 306 & 369 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. In his argument, the human rights lawyer said any judge “who orders a stay of proceedings in any criminal trial does so illegally and is liable to be sanctioned by the National Judicial Council (NJC). It is unfathomable that the Supreme Court decided to return the country to status quo ante in a rather brazen and bizarre manner.” Along with other judicial precedents, Falana premised his argument on section 306 of the ACJA, stating that an application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained. The human rights lawyer further cited Section 396 of the ACJA, which states that all preliminary objections “shall be considered along with the substantive issues and a ruling shall thereon be made at the time of the delivery of judgment.” But due to diverse legal opinions that faulted his positions on constitutional grounds, Falana provided details on the apex court banned stay of proceeding applications as contained in the Federal High Court (Criminal) Practice Directions, 2013 and the Court of Appeal evident in the Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions, 2014. Falana argued: “Pursuant to Order 1 of the Federal High Court (Criminal) Practice Directions, 2013, the rules shall minimise undue adjournments and delays and reduce the time spent at trials dealing with interlocutory matters and ensure that hearings are not stalled by unpreparedness of Court or the parties. “Order 6 thereof stipulates that the hearing of cases prosecuted by the EFCC, ICPC and SSS shall be conducted on a day to day basis as far as the schedule of the Court may permit. Without ensuring that investigation has been concluded and a prima facie case established, a prosecutor shall not file against a defendant in the court.” He further cited Order 7 of the Court of Appeal Practice Directions 2013, noting that the order directed the courts not “to hear appeals arising from interlocutory decisions of the court below where the matter deals with any of the issues.” He added that the apex court “is of the opinion that the grounds raised in the appeal are such that can conveniently be determined by way of an appeal arising from the final judgment of the court below,” noting that instead of entertaining interlocutory appeals the appellate court might order the trial court to accelerate hearing in the substantive suit. The human rights lawyer further cited Order 10 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013, which provided that the apex court “will only determine applications which cannot be taken with the substantive appeal. “For the avoidance of doubt, each Panel of the Supreme Court shall take all steps to reduce the time spent on hearing and determination of interlocutory applications both at the trial court and appeal and in the process minimise avenues for parties to make use of interlocutory applications as a means to frustrate or delay the expeditious conduct of cases at the courts,” Falana cited. In a Court of Appeal (Fast Track) Practice Directions issued on December 8, 2014, Falana cited Order 4 providing that active case management including discouraging interlocutory appeals and requiring parties, except in the most deserving cases, to subsume their interlocutory matters under a final appeal or under the substantive suit at the trial court. He said in dealing swiftly with applications and objections “to minimise their interruption of the main proceedings, the court will penalise delay tactics with heavy costs and rely on technology to aid case management. Court processes may be served by electronic means.” Falana thus argued that it was abundantly clear from the practice directions respectively issued by the apex court and appellate court in 2013 and 204 that all courts in the country had, before the enactment of ACJA, adopted measures “to discourage parties and their counsel from resorting to interlocutory appeals to frustrate the hearing and determination of cases of economic crimes and terrorism.” He thus insisted that the abolition of stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals by the ACJA “is illegal and unconstitutional. The contempt proceedings being initiated by Daudu will certainly provide an opportunity for me to join issues with the lawyers who are manipulating the criminal justice system to shield members of the ruling class from prosecution for grand corruption while indigent suspects are railroaded to jail over minor economic offences.” Source; Thisday]]>