Admin l Tuesday, September 24, 2019
LAGOS, Nigeria- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has appointed Benedict Peters, Chairman and CEO of AITEO into the Board of Advisors for the U.S.-Africa Business Center. The mission of the U.S.-Africa Business Center is to build lasting prosperity for Africans and Americans through job creation and entrepreneurial spirit, something that Mr. Peters has been active in on the continent for many years.
Welcoming Mr. Peters to the Board of Advisors, Chairman of the U.S.-Africa Business Centre, Scott Eisner, remarks: “We value and appreciate the insights from companies such as yours as they not only benefit the Center, but also play a pivotal role in strengthening the ties between the United States and countries throughout Africa.”
Mr. Peters will join CEO’s from many Fortune 500 companies who have a strong presence in Africa, including Banco Prestigío, BP, Caterpillar, Chevron, IBM, MasterCard, Microsoft, and many others.
Mr Kemi Pinheiro, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) has advocated for the abolition of the ‘trial within trial’ system of determining confessional statements in criminal and other trial matters in the country’s criminal justice system.
He also emphasized the need to amend ‘burden of proof’ in the ‘Evidence Act’, 2011 to reduce delay in criminal justice administration.
Pinheiro made the suggestion yesterday in a 40-page paper titled: “The Admissibility of Confessional Statements: Imperatives of Trial Within Trial” delivered at the Lagos State Judiciary 2019/2020 Legal Year Stakeholder’s Summit held at the Lagos City Hall.
Pinheiro, who was the main lecturer at the summit held under the chairmanship of Justice Habeeb Abiru of the Court of Appeal, argued that ‘trial within trial’ system has no basis in the Evidence Act, and is one of the major causes of delay in criminal trials adding, “the system is a waste of judicial time and creates unnecessary burden on judges”.
Pinheiro said the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 is fraught with so much inadequacies that they are delaying justice delivery process and suggested a practice direction that would remove ‘trial within trial’ from judicial processes.
He said confessional statements alone cannot secure conviction and that so much time is being wasted on admissibility of ‘one document in ‘trial within trial’.
“We don’t operate a jury system. Why then are we still conducting ‘trial within trial’, “ he queried.
“Trial within trial being foreign to our existing non-jury system law and having contributed immensely to the delay in justice delivery in criminal matters ought not to be conducted anymore in our legal system”, he said.
To buttress his postion, he cited the case of a judge who got carried away with arguments and submissions in a ‘trial within trial’ that he ended up giving judgment without hearing the substantive suit.
Pinheiro advocated that extraction of confessional statements of accused persons or defendants should be taken away from the police, and given to Magistrates or other judicial officers who must not only study the demeanor of a defendant, but also ensures that defendants is completely free while making the statement voluntarily as being done in India.
He argued that this way, controversies surrounding confessional statements will be completely eradicated.
He said that trial judges should then be entitled to, from the totality of the evidence led by parties, deliver judgments and in same expunge the confessional statement from their records, where found to be involuntarily made and, or act on same if found to be voluntarily made.
The senior lawyer argued that Section 29 (2) (a) – (b) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which governs admissibility of confessional statements and sets out the circumstances under which statements qualifying as confessions will be admitted.
“Curiously, and interestingly Section 29, as with any other section of the entire Evidence Act, makes no mention of the phrase “trial within trial.
“I make bold to say that the phrase does not exist in our statutory lexicon. Rather it is a practice that has evolved over time to test the voluntariness of a statement qualifying as a confession”, he said.
The Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba, in a welcome remark, noted that congestion of prisons has become a major problem to the judiciary.
Justice Alogba admitted that ‘trial within trial’ has been a major contributory factor to prison congestion and that it was what informed the choice of the topic of this year’s Summit on Criminal Justice Sector.
He urged stakeholders to look at ‘trial within trial’ within the context of solving the problem of prison congestion and delayed trial.
Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, in his address at the occasion remarked that the delivery of prompt and efficient justice remains a pivotal objective of his administration and that he would continually support the judiciary to achieve this goal.
The governor who was represented by a director in the Ministry of Justice, Said Quadri urged the Judiciary to ensure that its primary purpose which is to interpret the law is held sacrosanct and that this duty is not eroded under any circumstance.
He also urged Magistrates to hold Section 264 of the ACJL in high esteem by supervising the duration of Suspects on remand and also exercise their discretion as to the appropriateness of remanding suspects brought before them.
He advised that the plea bargain and restorative justice process must be taken seriously by all stakeholders as data has proved it to be very productive and that the process can assist in decongesting the courts and prisons.
Dr Martins, who delivered a paper on “Achieving Justice for Victims of Crimes-The Imperatives of Restorative Justice” explained that the system involves making restitution for victims of crimes and communal sentencing for offenders.
Martins said the law made provision the Police to do restorative justice, instead of court trial, if victim of crime says he is no longer interested in prosecution but stressed that victims and offenders must agree to restitution which would be entered as consent judgment between them by the court.
