New court Practice Directions on terrorism trials unconstitutional, null and void – Kanu’s Special Counsel, Ejimakor

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

SHARE THIS

Advertisements

–Pix(above L-R): Bar. Aloy Ejimakor and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

Advertisements

The new Practice Directions on terrorism trials recently issued by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court have been declared unconstitutional, null and void by the clear provisions of two subsections of Section 36 of the Constitution, which requires all trials to be in public.

Advertisements


Declaring this today, April 10, Bar. Aloy Ejimakor, Nnamdi Kanu’s Special Counsel, said the first is subsection (3) of Section 36 of the Constitution, which states inter alia: “The proceedings of a court or the proceedings of any tribunal relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of this section (including the announcement of the decisions of the court or tribunal) shall be held in public.”

Justice John Tsoho, CJ/FHC

“The second,” Ejimakor said, “is subsection (4) of Section 36 of the Constitution which states that “Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal.”

Advertisements

According to him, “The only restrictions the Constitution allows is on a case-by-case basis and it must be narrowly-tailored by the particular court or tribunal before whom the suspect is being tried, not by an omnibus Practice Directions that seek to envelope every case in one fell swoop,” adding that “the first narrowly-tailored exception can be found at Section 36, subsection 4(a) of the Constitution which states that “A court or such a tribunal may exclude from its proceedings persons other than the parties thereto or their legal practitioners in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, the welfare of persons who have not attained the age of 18 years, the protection of the private lives of the parties or to such extent as it may consider necessary by reason of special circumstances in which publicity would be contrary to the interests of justice.

“The second narrow exception is contained in Section 36(4)(b) of the Constitution, which states that ‘If in any proceedings before a court or such a tribunal, a Minister of the Government of the Federation or a commissioner of the government of a State satisfies the court or tribunal that it would not be in the public interest for any matter to be publicly disclosed, the court or tribunal shall make arrangements for evidence relating to that matter to be heard in private and shall take such other action as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the disclosure of the matter’ ”

The counsel thus noted that, other than in the circumstances of the narrowly-tailored exceptions permitted by the Constitution, the new Practice Directions are ultra vires the Constitution. “And it cannot be justified by a Terrorism Prevention Act that is unarguably subservient to the Constitution,” Ejimakor noted.

Recall that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, had, during the week, issued a set of new Practice Directions, in which he said thenceforth, terrorism trials in the country will be in camera, with no media coverage allowed, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s  inclusive./SHARE THIS

  • Tags: Bar. Aloy Ejimakor, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Justice John Tsoho, FHC
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *