A CASE FOR RESTORING THE JURY SYSTEM IN NIGERIA

By Professor Itse Sagay, SAN.

CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS AT A SYMPOSIUM ON

SALVAGING NIGERIA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:
THE JURY OPTION.

DATE:
27 – 3 – 18

VENUE:
ST. LEO CATHOLIC CHURCH,
HALL 1, IKEJA.

A CASE FOR RESTORING THE JURY SYSTEM IN NIGERIA

By Professor Itse Sagay, SAN.

At least in Lagos, the Jury system was operating with regard to criminal matters up until 1976, when it was
abolished. I personally supported the abolition for various reasons. But the most important one, was my belief that
0
 laymen Juries could easily be influenced or subjected to other peoples’ interests and instructions in making their
decisions. On the contrary, a Judge, being learned in law was more resistant to any outside influence than a layman.
In addition, a Judge by his status and position would more likely uphold the integrity of the judicial system. Again,
since the Judge decided the legal issues, whilst the jury decided on the facts, adopting the jury system would further
increase the duration of criminal justice cases, particularly those concerning corruption and bribery.

Unfortunately, in recent years, a lot of evidence has established that some Judges cannot be relied upon to uphold
the integrity of the judicial system. They appear prone either to bribery and corruption or bias as a result of their
relationship with the defendants before the court. An example of this is the increasing demonstration of Espirit de
corp between trial judges and Judges who are defendants before the Court.

It would also appear that technical legal knowledge is being used as a barrier to the attainment of justice, thereby
making knowledge of the law a negative factor in the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal cases,
particularly in corruption cases.

A disturbing example of this phenomenon occurred in a recent case which shall remain nameless and without title.
In that case, a judicial officer was charged with corruption for the following reasons.

(1) N30,000,000.00 had been paid into the account of the wife of the accused Judge in three installments, by a Lawyer
who was appearing before him.

(2) The same Lawyer had bought a car worth N8,500,000.00 for the son of the same Judge.

(3) About $525,000 was also found in the defendant’s bank account.

(4) In a raid of the Judge’s home by Security Officials, the following amounts of money were found.

(a) N6,000,000.00
(b) $121,279 US Dollars

(c) €4,400 Euros

(d) £80 Pounds Sterling

(5) It was also found that the said defendant transferred N85,000,000.00 and N90,000,000.00 to an investment
company.

There were various other amounts involved in the case, which need not detain us here. For example, the Judge was
accused of demanding and receiving N25,000,000.00 from another person who had a case before his Court. The
trial Court dismissed all the charges against the Judge for the following reasons, inter alia:

Regarding the N30,000,000.00 paid into the wife’s account, the Court held that since the wife did not transfer the
money from her own account to the Judge’s account, there was no evidence of any conspiracy to commit any
offence or of corruption against the Judge. On the contrary, the findings of the trial Court was that the
N30,000,000.00 was a gift from a well-wisher who intended to support the Judge towards the expenses of his
daughter’s wedding.

The same reason was given with regard to the car bought for the son. Since the son was the beneficiary of the car
gift, the Judge could not be accused of committing any offence.
With regard to the charge of corruption involving $525,000, the Court’s finding was that the money arose out of
the Judge’s share in the sale of some Family Estates.

1
With regard to the two sums of N85,000,000.00 and N90,000,000.00, transferred to an investment company, the
Court found that there was no unlawful act on the part of the defendant regarding the charge of unlawfully acquiring
those sums of money. The Court was of the view that they arose from the lawful income of the defendant Judge.
In the view of the trial Judge, the defendant had earned all these monies from his salaries, estacodes and allowances
in dollars and other foreign currencies as a Judge and as a Legal Practitioner who practiced Law for over 20 years,
during which he made investments, before becoming a Judge. According to the trial Judge, the defendant Judge
had inherited real Estates from his grand-father who was a prominent public office holder in the past. Additionally,
the defendant Judge also inherited considerable assets from his father, who was also a high public officer. It could
therefore NOT be said that a man who had earned all the said foreign currencies from estacodes and allowances,
etc. after elevation to the Bench and who had a family background of the type already stated, did not possess the
capacity or even goodwill to muster the N90,000,000.00 and N85,000,000.00 to invest in property. In conclusion,
the Court stated as follows: “It must be said loud and clear that while the nature of the Judge’s duties makes him
to live solitary and humble life, that does not mean that every Judge is a church mouse and cannot be blessed, with
a rich, affluent and prodigious background from which he can live a decent life or make investments.”

Therefore, all these monies were not obtained by unlawful activity. Specifically, the said Judge’s salaries which
was just over N6,000,000.00 a year, could not be regarded as the sole source of the Judge’s earnings for the
defendant was in receipt of estacodes and allowances from externally funded conferences, workshops., seminars
and others, plus inheritance from his Grand-father and Father.

In addition, other income which accrued to the Judge came from investments “in blue chips, his properties, Estates
of mother, father and grand-father” were resources he controlled in addition to his salary.

It is important to stress that all these extraordinary sources of vast wealth were NEVER proven to exist, because the
trial Judge held that the defendants had no case to answer. Therefore all these claims and assertions of great wealth,
of Saudi Arabian proportions, were never proved in Court. The Defendants did not have to defend themselves or
be subjected to cross-examination during which they would have been compelled to prove ownership of all the
assets found on them (the Defendants). The Defendant Judge would have had to establish his parent’s ownership
of identified properties, when they were sold, to whom they were sold and how much was realized from the sales.
The 1st Defendant would have been compelled to list all the conferences he attended abroad and how much was
paid him on each trip to enable him accumulate 525,000 USD. He would have had to establish what investments
he made in “blue chip” Companies to earn N170 million. He would have had to establish his relationship with the
well-wisher who paid N30 Million into his wife’s account. He would have had to satisfy the Court about the type
of wedding his daughter had to attract N30 million gift from a “well-wisher”.

But he was saved all that by the trial Judge who held that the Defendants had no case to answer and therefore did
not have to prove the claims of outstanding wealth in their defence. So the Defendants simply got away with clearly
outlandish claims.

There are number of similar cases going on now involving Lawyers depositing huge sums of money in the accounts
of Judges before whom they were appearing. The usual explanations for these huge deposits are, marriage of the
Judges’ daughters, death of the Judges’ relations, like mother, father, Auntie, Uncle, etc.

After my recovery from the shock of the above decision, it dawned on me that legal knowledge could make Judges
prone to legal technicalities, creating a barrier between technical law and justice. It could also empower any Judge
who is unfavourably disposed to the trial of a defendant, to scuttle the case of the prosecution by professing to
believe wild stories that cannot even be told to the marines.

That is why I became convinced that criminal justice particularly in corruption cases cannot be successfully and
fairly disposed of in Nigeria, unless ordinary laymen and women who still have a sense of outrage, wrong doing
and basic common sense, are legally empaneled to decide the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime,
particularly the crimes of bribery and corruption.