Stay of Proceedings in Criminal Trials under the Nigerian Law

Until the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) was passed into law, it was the norm that upon an appeal being entered at the Appellate Court, the trial court ought to pend proceedings upon an application from the appellant or upon being notified by the appellant. Although an appeal on its own does not constitute a stay, it is desirable that the trial court stay proceedings upon becoming aware of the appeal in order to avoid a situation of conflicting decisions, which probably could render the decision of the appellate court useless and nugatory. This was the position in both criminal and civil litigation.

S. 306 of the ACJA, 2015 states thus:

“An application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter before the court shall not be entertained.”

The provisions of the above section are pari materia with the provisions of the ACJL in the States of the Federation where the ACJA has been domesticated. There are lots of assumptions about what this section of the law means or intends. Is this section saying that the court cannot stay proceedings pending the determination of an appeal in a criminal trial? Or is it that the staying of proceedings in a criminal trial is left absolutely to the discretion of the trial court? Or is it that an application for stay of proceedings cannot be made in a criminal trial simpliciter?

The first and second assumptions are related. While the third assumption stands alone, considering the third assumption, if the intention of the law marker is that a party who has lodged an appeal and whose appeal has been entered in an appellate court cannot file an application for stay of proceedings in a criminal trial, the question is whether the section is constitutional. An appeal against the decision of a trial court, whether interlocutory or substantive, is a constitutional right of a party in a criminal trial.

A defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to a fair hearing in the determination of any allegation against him. Is it fair that while an appeal is pending against a decision of the trial court in an appellate court, the trial court delivers it’s judgment convicting the defendant? What becomes of the image of the judiciary if the appellate court delivers a favorable decision to the defendant? Will it not result in a decision whereby the courts give conflicting decisions? What happens to the age-long principle of law that has been codified that once an appeal has been entered, the appellate court becomes seized of the matter? It creates an absurd situation where a defendant will stand trial in two courts on the same offense at the same time! This is anarchy, which will lead to judicial rascality. Obviously, it is unfair to the defendant.

Thus, if the third assumption is the intention of the law marker, then the provision of S. 306 of the ACJA is not fair, is unconstitutional, and ought to be struck down from the ACJA.

On the first and second assumptions, in certain situations, even without an application for stay of proceedings, the court, suo motu, can stay proceedings pending the determination of an appeal. This is in order to protect the sanctity of the judiciary and not bring the judiciary into disrepute. As the wording of the section does not state that the court cannot stay proceedings in a criminal matter, only that an application for stay of proceedings cannot be entertained in a criminal matter, can the court then stay proceedings pending the determination of an appeal in a criminal matter?

However, if the first and second assumptions are correct, then it will contradict the obvious stipulation of the section to the effect that an application for stay of proceedings shall not be entertained. By and large, S. 306 of the ACJA has definitely shut out any application for stay of proceedings in a criminal trial in defiance of the various obvious provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Beside the said section being in breach of the constitutional rights of the defendant to appeal, it also breaches and violates the hierarchy of the courts in Nigeria provided by S. 6 of the 1999 Constitution.

Furthermore, the section is unrealistic. I stand to be corrected, but no sane trial court (all our courts are sane) will deliver its decision in a criminal matter when an appeal is pending at the appellate court against its decision in the case. In other words, the section is against legal reasoning. Or could it be that the lawmakers intend to intimidate defendants into surrendering, knowing that the defendant’s constitutional right of appeal has been tactically stolen? In practice, the application of this section has been counterproductive to the interests of justice. A defendant ought to have the right to extensively and exhaustively explore all the legal avenues to challenge any allegation of crime against him.

In conclusion, it is my recommendation that the provision of S. 306 of the ACJA, 2015, be struck down for being unconstitutional, against legal reasoning, unrealistic, draconian, and against the interest of justice.

The article was written by: Adedapomola Joseph

Source: @LoyalNigerialawyer