The Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta, has approved the transfer of some judges handling high profile cases to other divisions.
File photo of Chief Judge of Nigeria,Justice Mahmud Mohammed
The affected judges are from the Federal High Court in Lagos. Those that are leaving the Lagos division are Justices Okon Abang, Chukwujekwu Aneke, Mohammed Yunusa and Musa Kurya.
Justice Abang has been transferred to Abuja. He had barred the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency from arresting Senator Buruji Kashamu for illicit drug dealing allegations. Other of his cases still pending are: former presidential adviser Kingsley Kuku Vs, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Honeywell Group Vs. Ecobank Pls.
Also, Justice Yunusa , who granted the order restraining EFCC from arresting former minister of aviation and Senator Stella Oduah, was sent to Enugu state, The Nation reports.
While Justice Aneke was transferred to Benue and Justice Kurya to Plateau and in the case of Justice Ibrahim Buba who was expected to be moved to the north, will remain in Lagos. He is currently handling the fraud trial of former director-general of Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Patrick Akpobolokemi.
The cases pending before the judges that have been transferred will begin afresh. The new development has unsettled litigants who were said to be unhappy about the change as it will mean fresh cost.
According a human rights group, Access to Justice (A2Justice) frowned at the transfer, stating that such ‘arbitary and routine’ transfer of judges will affect the speedy dispensation of justice.
The group added that the transfer of judges who had commenced not complete trial will escalate the cost of litigation.
“Such transfers of judges often times occur after the case has spent years on the docket of the court of the transferred judge.
“This would entail recalling witnesses and re-tendering evidence. Some of the cases affected may also be fundamental rights cases, where issues of constitutional rights – including liberty or movement – may also be in question.
“These administrative transfers force litigants to outspend themselves to resolve disputes or find remedies, in view of additional expenses involved in re-litigating a matter.
“Transfers take their toll on, and burden witnesses too, some of whom may be unable, on health or other grounds, to return to court to give evidence again.
“When witnesses are unable to reappear to give evidence and a case is thereby prejudiced, this perpetuates replicates and amplifies negative public impressions about our court system and its ability to uphold the rule of law and dispense justice freely and efficiently.
“No person affected by these transfers would have a positive impression of the court or how the courts take their responsibility to dispense justice,” It stated.
No comments:
Post a Comment