Judiciary Replies Malami, Says We Can’t Be Blamed for Delays in High-profile Cases

Alex Enumah

Barely 24 hours after the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Mr. Abubakar Malami, heaped the blame of delays in the trial of political persons on the Judiciary, the third arm of government has in a swift response faulted his claim, stating that such allegation “appears to be one-sided.”

The third arm of government in a statement, while noting that it may not be perfect as an institution, expressed hope that the various allegations being made against it by the federal government were, “not just a way of giving a dog a bad name so as to then hang it.”

The statement signed by Ahuraka Yusuf Isah, Senior Special Assistant (on Media) to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, claimed that the judiciary has continued to give its best despite the very harsh conditions under which it is operating.

“The Nigerian judiciary is not here to lay claim to be perfect but when the political and economic conditions under which it is operating is compared with its counterparts in other climes, it would be adjudged a prized model.
“The judiciary by its constitutional position does not have criminal investigation unit or ‘’Fraud Detective Squad’’ to detect and investigate criminal involvement of any person, neither does it have a garrison command to fight its cause or enforce its orders and decisions”, the statement read.

It added that more often than not, the federal government’s prosecution sector files more charges than it could prove or provide witnesses to prove, ostensibly at times for the prosecution to even fail.

In addition, the judiciary stated that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act ( ACJA), 2015, under reference, “is infected with sores in some parts, making speeding adjudications improbable in some instances, in addition to high volume of cases, limited number of judges, poor infrastructure or archaic equipment.”

On the allegation of not being transparent, the Judiciary claimed it operates in line with the budget call circular and ceiling of the federal government, while at the same time defends its budget before the National Assembly.
The statement noted that the judiciary does not intend to join issues with the federal government, but would state the facts as they are.

It stated: “Apart from the internal audit units of the Judiciary, the Federal Audit Department maintains offices in all the courts and judicial bodies that monitor spending in the Judiciary. If the Federal Audit raises a query on any transaction and it is not well defended, it sends such to the Public Account Committees of the National Assembly. Officials of the Judiciary would be invited to explain themselves.

“The question to ask is who else should the Judiciary open its account books to, and who among these organs had raised exceptions which were not defended by the Third Arm? The answer is none.

“One only hopes that these allegations against the judiciary by the federal government is not just a way of giving a dog a bad name so as to then hang it”.