LEGAL POSITION PAPER ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TRIAL BY JURY IN NIGERIA

“The laws and constitution of any nation is not a confinement or limitation of the rights of its people but an
expression of the extensions of the rights of the citizens"- Eshomomoh Ogene

Having hosted several advocacy events in our quest for the introduction of trial by jury, we are compelled to put
together this legal position paper, in order to address the primary obstacle stakeholders and concerned commentators
have raised-the constitutionality of trial by jury.

Section 24(d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), as amended, aptly captures that
the duties of the citizen is to “make positive and useful contribution to the advancement, progress and well-being
of the community where he resides;” after conceding in Section 14(2c) that “the participation by the people in their
government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” From the opening quote, this
is not a limitation of our rights as citizens but an expression of the extensions of how citizens should comply with
their duties in S.24(d). With the jingle always ringing that the judiciary, indeed, the court, is the last hope of the
common man; best for citizens to put their mouth where our hope lies!

The CFRN recognizes two court systems, the Federal and States, with nine judicatures cum jurisdictions and part
of the unified court system. They are the superior courts of records, and include:
1. The Supreme Court of Nigeria (S.230 – 236)
2. The Court of Appeal (S.237 – 248)
3. National Industrial Court of Nigeria (S.254)
4. The Federal High Court (S.249 – 254)
5. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (S.255 – 259)
6. The High Court of a State (S.270 – 274)
7. The Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (S.260 – 264)
8. The Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (S.265 – 269)
9. The Sharia Court of Appeal of a State (S.275 – 279)
10. The Customary Court of Appeal of a State (S.280 – 284)

COURTS WITH JURISDICTIONS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL

REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, CFRN

Besides the above constitutionally established superior Courts of records, there are several other courts which derive
their jurisdiction and procedures from Sections 6(4,5), 46, 251(1), 252, 254, 259, 274, 286 of the CFRN, which
confers upon the National and States’ Assemblies powers to enact Acts/laws that would establish any such Courts
with exclusive jurisdictions and lower courts of record. Such Courts thereafter established by Acts of the National
Assembly or Laws of State Assemblies include:
1. Magistrate Courts in the Federal Capital Territory (F.C.T), Abuja
2. Magistrate Courts of the 36 States
3. Customary/Area Courts of the F.C.T, Abuja
4. Sharia Courts of States
5. Customary Courts of States
6. Multi-Door Court, Lagos

Court Qualification Appeals to Jurisdiction Laws applied Establishment

of bench
Magistrate Legal High Courts Civil, criminal ACJA/ACJLs By enactment of
Courts of practitioners (Federal, (without capital etc National and State
F.C.T and Sworn F.C.T, and offences) Assemblies, not
States magistrates States) mentioned in the CFRN
 Customary Legal and/or Customary Limited Civil Native/custom By enactment of
Courts of non-legal Courts ofand criminal ary laws National and State
F.C.T and practitioners Appeal or Highmatters (and Assemblies, recognized
States Courts excluding death in principle by S.6(5h,i)
sentence) S.280 of CFRN
Sharia Legal Sharia Courts Civil and Islamic laws By enactment of
Courts of practitioners of Appeal or criminal matters National and State
F.C.T and Sworn High Courts Assemblies, recognized
States judges/Khadi in principle by S.6(5f,g),
s/Alkalis S.275 of CFRN
Lagos Legal and/or No appeals Limited Civil, Business laws By enactment of the
Multi-Door non-legal arbitration and Signed Lagos State House of
Courthouse practitioners Agreements Assembly, not by CFRN
Table 1: shows the courts not (directly) established by the constitution but by enactment of National and/or State
Assemblies, extant in Nigeria

S.286(2) of CFRN states that “nothing in the provisions of this section shall be construed, except in so far as other
provisions have been made by the operation of sections 299 and 301 of CFRN, as conferring jurisdiction as respects
Federal causes or Federal offences upon a court presided over by a person who is not or has not been qualified to
practice as a legal practitioner in Nigeria.” This section introduces a caveat for which we can juxtapose sections
234, 247, 253, 258, 273; all of which use the term “...at least" to determine the minimum requirement for any of the
under-listed Courts established by the Constitution, to be duly constituted:
a. Supreme Court
b. Court of Appeal
c. National Industrial Court
c. Federal High Court
d. Abuja High Court
e. High Court of a State

It however does not stipulate the maximum of judges (in the case of the High Courts, whose jurisdictions trial by
Jury seeks to be introduced) or non-judges- legal and/or non legal practitioners- required for the court to be duly
constituted. This is unlike in the Magistrates Courts Law of Lagos State which stipulates in Section 41 that “at any
sitting of the Court, a Magistrate may hear, determine and deal with either civil or criminal causes and matters or
with both”; or in S.42 that “a Magistrate may adjourn from the date of commencement of trial and during the
proceedings for a period not exceeding fourteen (14) working days.” In our held opinion, a (singular term)
Magistrate sitting is more explicit in specifying both the number of persons to sit and, defining the personality that
would conduct a sitting in a duly constituted Magistrate’s court; which also noted that a Justice of Peace may
preside.

CONSTITUTIONAL BACKING FOR LAY REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION IN CRIMINAL

CASES

The use of lay assessors or special referees as provided for in Section 35(1) of the Federal High Court Act, 1973 (as
amended), that “in any civil cause or matter, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient so to do or in a manner
prescribed under any enactment or law, call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified and try and
hear the cause or matter wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors; S.S(2) the remuneration, if any,
to be paid to an assessor shall be as determined by the Court or otherwise as so prescribed”. It goes on in 36(1) that
“Subject to Rules of Court, the Court may refer to an official or special referee for inquiry or report any question
arising in any cause or matter other than a criminal proceeding, S.S(2) The report of an official or special referee
may be adopted wholly or partially by the Court or a Judge and, if so adopted, may be endorsed as a judgment or
order to the same effect", are neither constitutionally provided for or recognized. Section 38(1) went on to State
that “...the official or special referee or arbitrator shall be deemed to be an officer of the Court, and referees and
subject to Rules of Court shall have such authority, conduct the reference in such manner, as the Court or a
Judge may direct.” Although the CFRN does not explicitly provide for lay assessors or special referees, these
sections are in consonance with the spirit of “...at least one judge” for a duly constituted court as required in S.253,
258, 273 of the CFRN, and in compliance with S.286 of the Constitution on who should preside in the duly
constituted Court. Of course, this can easily be extended to criminal proceedings, since jurors or jury panels are an
extension of lay assessors or special referees; but not lay assessors, which is prescribed for use only be used in non-
criminal cases, according to the Federal High Court Act (FHCA), 1973.

The explicit exegesis of S.253 (and 258, 273) of CFRN that “the Federal High Court shall be duly constituted if it
consists of at least one Judge of that Court” and S.254 (and 259, 274) that “subject to the provisions of any Act/law
of the National/State Assemblies, the Chief Judge of the Federal/F.C.T/State High Court may make rules for
regulating the practice and procedure of the Federal/F.C.T/State High Court” juxtaposed with S.286(1) is that:
provided there is at least one judge of that Court who is a legal practitioner and duly sworn in as a judge recognized
by the CFRN to preside over the case before the Federal/F.C.T/State High Court; the court is duly constituted to
have jurisdiction over such matters as described in S.251. Furthermore, since the extant norm of at least one judge
is being implemented with one single judge, for any such changes to the number of judges or non-judges to be duly
accepted, an enactment by the National/State Assembly would be required to confer powers and jurisdiction on such
addition and composition/structure. In essence, at least one judge can be paired with non-judges as well as judges,
just like at least a man and a wife is the clear description of a family. Moreover, where some cultures/religion
acknowledge polygamy of multiple wives, a law is provided to accommodate it, which however, neither stipulates
the maximum number or gender of such children (which could now be considered Acts of GOD or at the discretion
of the spouses that make up the minimum definition of family); but the minimum requirement for the definition of
a family is at least a man and a wife. Family doesn’t lose its definition if it is just a man and his spouse, neither
does it add to its definition when children of any gender is added; because, the minimum is a man and his wife! The
United States of America's Census Bureau defines a family as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the
householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. “At least” and “or more" are one and
the same!

Thus, we can clearly conclude that the CFRN which stipulates the minimum number of judges, does not proscribe
addition of non-judges in the adjudication of civil or criminal cases presided by a constitutionally recognized and
sworn judge; neither does it state a maximum number of judges or non-judges or the composition/structure of the
addition exceeding the norm of one, which would duly constitute a Court sitting already conferred with jurisdiction
by an enactment.

On the other hand, the extant Criminal Code Act (CCA) backs trial by jury, as it recognizes “a member of a jury"
as a judicial officer in S.98C (S.S3e) to try criminal cases under this Federal law, the CCA. Thus, trial by Jury is
not unknown to our laws, and indeed, the CFRN recognizes the CCA in S.254F (S.S2). Section 4 of the CCA states
that “No person shall be liable to be tried or punished in any court in Nigeria for an offence, except under the express
provisions of the Code (CCA) or of some Act or Law which is in force in, or forms part of the laws of Nigeria”.
Considering the broad application of the CCA, its constitutional backing, and its recognition of jurors; it therefore
must not be seen that “a member of a jury" is recognized as a judicial officer by the CFRN viz the CCA, yet Nigeria
has failed to enact laws for trial by Jury and the empanelling of a jury for criminal trials.

Just as the CFRN did not establish the Magistrate Courts, it did not proscribe it; after all it is presided by a Magistrate
who is a legal practitioner, in compliance with S.286(1), with its jurisdiction conferred upon it by enactment of the
State and/or National Assemblies as provided for in the constitution in Section 6(4) that “nothing in the foregoing
provisions of this section shall be construed as precluding (A) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly
from establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with subordinate jurisdiction to that of a
High Court”; and 6(5) that “the Section 6 relates to (J) such other courts as may be authorised by law to exercise
jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and (K) such other court as
may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a
House of Assembly may make laws.” The Magistrate Courts and other non-Constitutionally established courts, are
lower tier courts of records, and of subordinate jurisdictions to all the other superior Courts of records created by
the CFRN.

Having addressed the key knotty Constitutional issue, indulge the reference to Section 36(6) which states “every
person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to – (C) defend himself in person or by legal
practitioners of his own choice; (D) examine, in person or by his legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the
prosecution before any court or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to
testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called
by the prosecution”. This is an expression of the extension of the rights of the citizens to lay
representation/participation and as his/her personal lay-attorney, despite the Constitutional provision of a
government funded Legal Aid in S.46. The point of law would be that in further expression of the extension of
citizens right, lay representation/participation cannot be limited to being one's defence attorney but extends to being
an adjudicator in such matters where citizens have been given the right to be their defence attorneys, despite not
being legal practitioners. It is often said that all crimes and offences, indeed, especially economic and financial
crimes which are to be tried by the jury, are crimes against the society not the government, and the injury is borne
by the citizenry; hence, whether or not a non-legal practitioner defendant chooses to be his personal defence attorney
or not, by extension of this right, the citizens, his peers from the society, have an equal right and indeed by S.24(d),
a duty to adjudicate his case and pass a verdict in a duly constituted court. The ACJA (2015) S.9(1), 10, 20, 21, 22,
23, 27 went further in extending our duties as citizens by encouraging, and in some cases, compelling citizens to
make a private persons arrest of criminal suspects on behalf of the State.

Section 36(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) provided for Citizens right to fair and
public hearing, stipulating that “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;” and (4) states that “whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless
the charge(s) is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal.”
To this effect, we say that there is no fair hearing in public that can be more fair and public than one by ones peers
from the society. Incidentally, what is most important in criminal matters is the evidence and questions of the
fact/truth, which is the only basis of the jury panel’s verdict, as they follow the instructions of the presiding judge
in guiding them and addressing few issues of the law that may arise from the presentation of evidence and cross-
examination of witnesses. Criminal and indeed, corruption cases would easily be narrowed down to the questions
of fact; whilst all technical legal issues and/or interlocutory issues is addressed before the Jury is empanelled and
the trial by Jury even commences. Of course, this would save the time and resources of the State, the Court and the
people.

At our online symposium in September titled “the role of the jury system in restructuring Nigeria’s criminal justice
system", renowned legal luminary and constitutional lawyer, who is the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory
Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN, urged members of parliament “not only to proffer
suggestions to improve the draft bill produced by the organizers of this conference, but also to join in the efforts to
ensure its fast and smooth passage through the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly, since this is
neither a matter on the Exclusive Legislative list or in the Concurrent list. It is therefore a residual matter, subject
to states exclusive jurisdiction.”

PSYCHO-SOCIAL BENEFITS OF THE JURY SYSTEM

Laws like governments, are not alien forces over us, neither do they govern/regulate the lives of aliens but citizens
of a community and nation. They are also not some secret society rules or an exclusive reserve to legal practitioners
and government functionaries, to use to prey on the masses without ramifications. The actions and inactions of the
citizens, more aptly, the behaviour, lifestyle and psychosocial patterns of a people is shaped by laws and
governments, more than any other thing. A society where social justice thrives is one that fully integrates its people
into the processes which shape their laws and governments.

According to Marcel Lemonde (2013) final report on the “Needs assessment and recommendations of action for the
Turkish criminal justice system”, sponsored by the European Union (EU); which has 26 of its 27 strong Member-
States fully integrating lay representation/participation in its judiciary as laymen judges/assessors and/or trial by
Jury in civil and criminal matters, with Cyprus as the exception; nearly two centuries ago, Tocqueville described
the advantages of the participation of lay judges in criminal justice in these words “...the jury does in reality
consolidate the powers of the judiciary; and in no country are the judges so powerful as where the people
share their privileges (sic) and responsibilities”. He further said that “It would be a very narrow view to look
upon the jury as a mere judicial institution; for however great its influence may be upon the decisions of
the courts, it is still greater on the destinies of society at large. The jury is, above all, a political institution.
It may be regarded as a gratuitous public school, ever open, in which every juror learns his rights, enters into daily
communication with the most learned and enlightened members of the upper classes, and becomes practically
acquainted with the laws, which are brought within the reach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice
of the judge, and even the passions of the litigating parties.”

It is a given that the EU strongly understands the immense psychosocial benefits of lay representation/participation
in the criminal justice system, which explains why they recommend it to the Turkish government; who have been
an applicant for EU membership since 1987, as part of the reforms Turkey should undertake to meet the criminal
justice standard codification of the EU, especially mulling its poor human rights records; low compliance with the
rule of law; the gross violation of its nation’s and EU Court judgements; lack of public confidence in the criminal
justice and to unite/integrate a deeply segregated nation of secluded communities. The first comment of the general
remarks particularly stands out: “It is recommended to introduce citizen participation in the operation of Turkish
criminal justice...” The EU is not disillusioned about the benefits of a democratised criminal justice system which
includes laymen judges/assessors adjudicating beside professional sworn judges or empanelled juries, in deciding
the question of facts, which has been their practice for centuries.

The trust deficit cum apathy has been eliminated between citizens and government who have been duly integrated,
feeling equally as powerful, and indeed, as responsible as those in government for the peace, progress, prosperity
and development of their countries. It has also increased the level of cooperation amongst the citizens, who are now
clear minded and consistently able to be rational, reasonable, unbiased, humane and emotionally detached from
issues to comprehend them and take fair and equitable decisions in-court as jurors or lay judges/assessors, or in their
communal and/or private dealings. This has up-scaled compliance with the rule of law, deepened accountability and
increased the layers of transparency in public and private businesses, and eliminated every basis of divisiveness
amongst the citizenry that could have made them easy preys for politicians, government officials, foreigners or the
international community; as is the case with Africans who have lost every sense of purpose and direction for
communal/local/national/regional/continental cooperation and collaboration.

In Africa, and indeed Nigeria, this is greatly reflected by the pervasive corruption, impunity, poor human capital
development, poor human rights records, brazen looting of natural and economic resources by governments
(national and foreign), infrastructure deficit, high mortality and low life expectancy, injustice and jungle justice,
extrajudicial killings, violation of court judgements and total absence of rule of law, a dysfunctional society with
under-developed/fragile democracies and survival of the fittest systems, and ultimately, endemic poverty. The
justice system, indeed is the anchorage and bedrock of any society!
PROPOSED MODEL OF TRIAL BY JURY

Having established that lay representation/participation and by extension, trial by jury, is not proscribed by the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), but rather, its principle, lay
representation/participation/adjudication is encouraged and expressly promoted; it cannot be said to be in
contravention or contradiction of any of the provisions of the Nigerian constitution, the ACJA/ACJL or any known
laws or Acts of the States or National Assemblies. It is therefore pertinent to highlight that Section 13 of the
proposed Jury service draft bill put together by The Jury Justice and Rectitude Advocacy Initiative, seeks to adopt
a principle of majority not unanimous votes to arrive at a verdict. According to Damilola Adebayo (2019) on trial
by Jury in the USA, “the verdict of the jury in a criminal case must be unanimous except in two states —Oregon
and Louisiana— whose jury verdict are by majority. However, in civil cases, there are thirty states with laws
allowing less than unanimity;” so this is not altogether novel, as even the appellate Courts (Supreme Court and
Court of Appeal) in Nigeria all adopt the majority votes model of verdict.

The jury trial is a trial by a group of honest persons with a sense of justice, impeccable characters who are peers of
the defendant, sworn and empanelled to return a verdict of guilt or otherwise, based solely on the facts and evidence
as presented by the prosecution and defendant, in a court presided by a professional judge. According to the jury
service draft bill in S.7, the randomly selected jurors shall be between the ages of 21 – 65 years, while S.9 exempts
ex-convict of less than 10 years post-completion of sentence or persons under investigations or being prosecuted
for criminal cases amongst others.

With only the prosecution conferred with discretion on trial by jury, all interlocutory and questions of law outside
the substantive issues would be decided before a jury trial date is set, after which period the jury panel selection
process commences. Every jury panel per case shall be selected from a standing jury pool which has been scrutinised
by the general public, who shall be encouraged to provide evidence-backed allegations against their integrity for
the Department of State Security to investigate and recommend to the jury service department (JSD), which shall
then select 750 persons quarterly into the standing jury pool, as proposed in S.5(24). This process in itself is
expected to deter anyone with questionable backgrounds from applying for Jury service, and encourage only those
with impeccable and honest and patriotic characters to participate in the jury service. To further prevent Jury
tampering and financial inducement of jurors, jurors would be entitled to benefit from the Whistle blowers policy,
when they bring forward any such evidence to the Jury Service Department (JSD).

Without any questions of law being raised during the trial, the jury trial shall be able to base its verdict only on the
strength of the arguments, evidence and facts of the substantive case as presented by the opposing counsels, who
run the risk of a disciplinary strike where they attempt to apply any form of dilatory tactics or introduce questions
of the law on non-substantive or non-evidence issues during the trial. The presiding judge shall also have the
responsibility to guide the jury fairly to focus only on the evidence and the substantive issues being raised in the
arguments of the counsels.

With a clear simple majority able to return a verdict where not more than two jurors abstain from voting; trial by
jury is expected to be succinct, and the prosecution would be put on its toes to carry out thorough investigations in
order to have substantial evidence to proof beyond reasonable doubts that the defendant is guilty, to make it easy
for the jury to enforce high moral standards with their verdict for members of the society.

Nonetheless, the States’ practising trial by Jury shall be expected to operate at least two decent Jury lodges, guarded
by a special jury protection unit, to be used to sequester jurors only when the need arises. Jurors shall be entitled to
a meagre decent jury service remuneration (duty allowance) after the trial, which shall take into consideration the
number of days of jury service. This provision is similar to S.35(2) of the FHCA, as amended.

STRATEGIC APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON CRIMINAL DEFENDANT’S RIGHT

TO TRIAL BY JURY
Riding on the S.36(6c,d) of CFRN whose provisions affirm lay representation/participation and does not annul any
High Courts prerogative to expand the base of adjudicator to integrate lay men and non-judges (optimized in the
FHCA), so long as it is presided by a sworn professional judge, and there is an enactment to accommodate any such
new jurisdiction that may not align with the norm of a single judge; the proposed Jury service draft bill in S.5(20)
and S.10 mandates prosecution/prosecutorial agencies to try corruption cases of ten million Naira and above by trial
by Jury, but gives them alone the discretion to (not) initiate jury trials, where the Chief Judge gives written consent.
This implies that we are not essentially affirming that it is a constitutional right of every defendant, in order not to
over-reach. However, with stronger national acceptance by the citizenry across the sub-nationals, whose confidence
in the criminal justice system is expected to soar from participating in Jury service at the Federal, F.C.T or States
High Courts (judicature issues are neither on the legislative exclusive or concurrent list, but residual viz Schedule
II Part II and by extension S.254, 259, 274 of the CFRN; which means that both States' and National Assemblies
can enact the jury service bill into law); we shall there after propose relevant amendments to Sections 36, to insert
the right to Jury trial for defendant in criminal/corruption cases with a value of ten million Naira (N10,000,000.00)
and above, and possibly expand its triable offences to include rape, offences with life imprisonment sentence, and
possibly some civil matters.

We do not acknowledge the exigency to expressly insert trial by Jury in the constitution, since it is not required to
introduce lay representation/participation in the criminal justice system, just as there was no necessity for a
constitutional amendment to States and F.C.T Abuja Magistrates court law, Lagos Multi-door Courthouse amongst
others, with their varying jurisdictions, or introduce lay assessors and non-judges in the FHCA. Moreover, after a
successful trial run at the Federal and F.C.T High Courts, in High Courts of progressive States, which we shall use
to understand and fine-tune a congruous model for a sustainable jury system; the Constitutional amendment which
requires the concurrence of at least 24 States' Assemblies as stipulated in Section 9 of the CFRN, shall then be
undertaken. Until such an amendment, only the prosecution has the right and discretion to (not) seek a jury trial in
the cases specified in the proposed jury service draft Bill.

CONCLUSION

Every argument has several sides to it, the law has two sides to it but justice must have only one face, which is the
truth! Like George Orwell said, any society that strays further from the truth would end up hating and hounding the
just, honest and truthful. The quest for truth-based societies, evidence-based justice and unlimited but regulated
citizens participation/inclusion in governance is why 7 of 7 G7 nations, and 16 of 20 G20 nations practise lay
representation/participation in the judiciary. Even Russia practices the jury system! That is why CHRIST JESUS'
Biography in Proverbs 23:23 admonishes us to “buy the truth and sell it not; yea, also wisdom, instructions and
understanding”. Truth is transparency and accountability, which encourages and deepens citizens participation in
the process and systems of governance.

The saying is taught that “it is a self indictment to allege that there are no good, just, honest, fair, patriotic lay
Nigerians who have proven they can buy the truth and not sell it; who can take instructions from the presiding judge
and are wise and able to comprehend the facts of any case”. The saying also taught that “these Nigerians are aplenty,
but have yet to make themselves available to be the moral compass of the society because there has being no
congruous platform that offers need for their service and positive contributions to their community, society and
nation.”

In the face of justice, truth must prevail and legal innuendos and considerations must come second place. However,
in this case we have the CFRN as the legal backing to enact a truth/evidence based justice system, rooted in citizens
participation. Re-introduction of trial by jury based on the extant CFRN, in the honest opinion of The Jury Justice
and Rectitude Advocacy Initiative, cannot be objectively objected to, except for those seeking a straw to deny fair
and equitable justice a chance in Nigeria. Furthermore, the issues that plagued its earlier practise in Nigeria up until
1976 and caused the military to abolish trial by jury, has been substantially addressed in the proposed jury service
draft Bill; as it adopts a public participation process in jury pool selection, has an anti-corruption clause, and
prescribes penalties and consequences for any act of abuse by those responsible to ensure/enforce compliance with
the law.

The jury is not a judge! Their duty is to assist the judge, the judge is the sole proprietor presiding over his Court.
Currently, judges and magistrates are allowed to sit with assessors (in the Child Rights Act, 2013 and the Federal
High Court Act S.35&36 etcetera) who have vast knowledge in the subject before the Court, that is a form of jury.
Furthermore, the Criminal Code Act which is an extant law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, applicable in the
Federal High Court and FCT High Courts, appealable up to the Supreme Court, recognises “jurors" in S.98C (S.S3e)
as judicial officers. From the above, this paper has tried to establish that trial by Jury is not unconstitutional. It also
neither seeks to expunge the ACJA/ACJLs, but to enhance compliance with and strengthen Sections 86, 93(3), 103,
110(2(6)) of the ACJA 2015; to guarantee that justice is not only done, but seen by the Nigerian people to have been
done. However, it shall pilot in the Federal High Court and FCT High Court, and be appealable up to the Court of
Appeal.

For us, trial by Jury is justice of the people, by the people and for the people; which would protect our rights and
bring to life “we the people" in the CFRN, 1999 as amended!

This is the official legal position on the constitutionality of reintroducing trial by Jury in Nigeria, by The Jury
Justice and Rectitude Advocacy Initiative, promoters of the jury system in Nigeria.
REFERENCES

ACJA, 2015; Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

CFRN, 1999; Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended).
Criminal Code Act
Damilola Adebayo (2019); The Practicability of the Trial by Jury in the Nigerian Legal System. Louisiana State
University, USA.
Federal High Court Act, 1973, (as amended).
Magistrates Courts Law of Lagos State, 2011.
Marcel Lemonde (2013); Needs assessment and recommendations of action for the Turkish criminal justice system.
Council of Europe Joint Programme.
The Jury Justice and Rectitude Advocacy Initiative (2022); Administration of Jury Trials Criminal Justice bill.