Udeogu (Kalu) Case: Major Setback For Justice Administration (Conclusion)

PROF. ITSE SAGAY (SAN)

In Josiah v. The State, [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 125, decided in 1985, the Supreme Court made it clear that in a crim­inal trial, justice consists of a “three-way traffic.”

According to Oputa, JSC,:

ABUJA DOCTOR REVEALS HOW MOST NIGERIA MEN ARE NOW OVERCOMING TERRIBLE BEDROOM PERFORMANCE DUE TO THIS BRILLIANT DISCOVERY. DONT BE A VICTIM!

“In deciding whether to allow the appeal and acquit and dis­charge an appellant, the court must consider the surrounding circumstances in the interest of justice. Any Order allowing this appeal and also acquitting and discharging the appellant will not be an Order made in the interest of justice. And jus­tice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a three-way traffic – justice for the appellant accused of a heinous crime of murder; justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased, “whose blood is crying to heaven for vengeance” and fi­nally JUSTICE FOR THE SOCI­ETY AT LARGE – THE SOCIETY WHOSE SOCIAL NORMS AND VALUES HAD BEEN DESE­CRATED AND BROKEN BY THE CRIMINAL ACT COMPLAINED OF. It is certainly in the inter­est of justice that the truth of this case should be known and that if the appellant is properly tried and found guilty, that he should be punished. That Jus­tice which seeks only to protect the appellant will not be even handed justice. It will not even be justice tempered with mercy.” (At pp. 141 -1)

Can it be justifiably assert­ed that justice was done in this Udeogu case? Was justice done to the Nigerian Society whose social norms and values have been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of; whose patrimony has been looted to the detriment of the welfare of the public? The an­swer is a big NO! (Please note, the merits of the guilty convic­tion were not contested or ques­tioned)

At the high level of the Su­preme Court, against whose judgments there can be no ap­peal, it is mandatory that the Justices must consider the con­sequences and impact of their judgments, in order to avoid public injury, and sending the wrong message to potential vi­olators of critical social norms. It is alright for a lawyer fresh from the Law School or a young newly appointed Judge to in­dulge in 2 + 2 equals 4 type of judgment. As he gains experi­ence and progresses up the lad­der of authority, he must add the norms and values of society to his judgments. At that level, a judgment must be based on jus­tice, merit, not on technicalities.

All the legal justifications ad­duced for this shocking decision hold no water. Section 238(2) of the Constitution which deals with the powers of the President to appoint a Judge of the Court of Appeal is irrelevant to this case. Nothing in the case at the High Court level contradicted that authority.

The same applies to Section 250(1) of the Constitution deal­ing with the appointment of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. Section 290 deals with the declaration of assets by Judicial Officers. How does that apply to a newly promoted Court of Appeal Judge going to the High Court to complete a case 90% completed, in order to spare the public the pain of another 12 years of judicial rig­marole over its grossly violated norms and values?

Section 396(7) of ACJA was intended by the National Assem­bly to eliminate a major obstacle to the Administration of Crim­inal Justice in Nigeria. Should the Supreme Court be seen to be hostile to such a major sal­utary progress in our legal sys­tem? Should the Highest Court be an obstacle to a smooth and effective operation of our legal System?