The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (RSACJA) 2015, a radical and novel innovation from Nigeria’s judicial and legal community, has come under fire as arguments raged over an appeal filed by the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited (NLNG) seeking leave of the court to appeal a ruling dismissing its objection to a summons for the company and two of its officials to stand trial.

The NLNG, its immediate past Managing Director, Tony Attah, and General Counsel and Company Secretary, Akachukwu Nwokedi, who had been summoned by a Rivers State Chief Magistrate Court to stand trial over complaints of contract irregularities, sought the leave of the court to appeal the ruling dismissing their preliminary objection.  

But counsel to their accuser, Macobarb International Limited and its Managing Director, Shedrack Ogboru, Morrison Uzoma had countered the request by Babalakin & Co., counsels to NLNG, Attah and Nwokedi, asserting that the law does not permit defendants in a criminal case to appeal against preliminary rulings.  

Macobarb International Limited, a Grade A contractor to the NLNG, had instituted criminal proceedings in suit number: PMC/1015/CS/2021 against the company and its two top officials, accusing them of “false pretences, fraudulent tricks, and misrepresentations’ in a contract awarded to it by the latter.  

Consequently, the court presided over by Blessing Vic-Jumbo, a Chief Magistrate. summoned the NLNG, Attah and Nwokedi to answer to the complaints brought against them but their lawyers, Babalakin & Co. raised preliminary objections to the summon, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction, among other issues.

But Vic-Jumbo overruled their preliminary objections on Monday, February 7, 2022 and fixed Thursday, February 24 for mentioning of the case.

But Tola Oshobi SAN and Charles Adekunle of Babalakin & Co. argued that the continued hearing of the matter in the face of their clients’ appeal would amount to a breach of their (NLNG, Attah and Nwokedi) constitutional right of appeal, referencing Section 313 of the Rivers State ACJA to assert that “this Honourable Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings in criminal matters”.

The NLNG lawyers averred that their clients require the leave of the court to appeal the said ruling given that “the grounds of appeal are weighty and arguable and are within the jurisdiction of this court” and “mixed with law and facts”.

They agreed with Chief Magistrate Blessing Vic-Jumbo that by the said Section 54 of the Rivers State Magistrate Court Law, a person can appeal to the High Court as of right when the person has been sentenced; adding that “by implication, other forms of appeal in criminal matters must be with leave of court”.

But Uzoma and Jombo countered the position of the NLNG lawyers in their filed address which they adopted in open court, stating that “the ruling and the basis for which the defendants seek appeal are founded on the criminal summons or charge against them under the provisions of the Rivers State Administration of Criminal Justice Law No.7 of 2015”, pointing out that “appeal on this can only come when there is a conviction or acquittal or where there is an order of dismissal of the charge made by the magistrate court”.

The Macobarb counsels argued that the defendants’ applications and the proposed notices of appeal in the instant case do not come under any of the rights of appeal in that law, maintaining that the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought by the defendants in the application.

They clarified that “the instant law intended to ensure speedy trial in criminal matters,” noting that the right of appeal in interlocutory decisions in criminal matters founded on a ruling to a preliminary objection is curtailed under the provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Law, which “intendment is to obviate the difficulties often encountered by the trial courts which are most often bogged down by interlocutory appeals filed by defence counsels in order to stultify proceedings and thereby truncate trials of defendants”.

After listening to submissions by counsels to the Macobarb and NLNG, the trial Chief Magistrate, Blessing Vic-Jumbo reserved ruling for Tuesday, March 15, 2022.

According to Olayinka Aileru, a Lagos based legal practitioner, Section 396 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 provides that arguments on a preliminary objection are to be taken along with the substantive issues, and the ruling thereon to be taken at the time of delivering final judgement.

He further averred that the said provision is mandatory on a trial court because the operative word is “shall” which imposes an obligation, and not a discretion of the trial court, stressing that Section 306 of the Act abolished the practice of stay of trial proceedings pending the hearing of appeals on a preliminary objection.

“As stated earlier, ruling on preliminary points or objections are to be taken at the time of delivery of judgement. However, it often happens that some judges who are still fixated on the old procedure deliver ruling on the preliminary objection before proceeding with the trial. This will in effect create an opportunity for appeal.”

“The implication of Section 306 is that the appellate courts no longer have the power to order stay of proceedings at the trial court, pending the hearing of the interlocutory appeal. What this means in essence is that the trial court will be in order to continue with the trial proceedings notwithstanding the appeal filed.”

Tuesday, March 15, 2022 may represent a watershed in the annals of Nigeria’s jurisprudence and the efficacy of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 as the ruling of Chief Magistrate Blessing Vic-Jumbo on whether Nigeria and Africa’s gas giant, the Nigeria LNG and its top officials would stand in the dock or not to answer to criminal charges preferred against them.