US Justice System and Lessons in Speedy Judgment

Unlike in the United States, many court cases that demand speedy trial and justice instead of ‘judgment’ in Nigeria are often drowned under the weight of contrived time, technicalities, judicial hocus-pocus, as well as lack of institutional capacity, writes Louis Achi

The transparency and speed with which the United States justice system dispatched former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s judicial quest to access details of President Bola Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University (CSU) is indeed a sharp contrast with what is largely obtainable in the Nigerian justice system.

One can say that it is reminiscent of the speed with which the UK court tried and convicted the former Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu alongside his wife, Beatrice, and a medical doctor, Obinna Obeta over alleged human organ transplant issues, as well the ex-Governor James Ibori’s UK trial.

Atiku had requested documents for use in Nigerian courts to support his argument that President Tinubu allegedly forged a diploma certificate he claimed to have obtained from CSU in 1979 and submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the 2023 presidential election.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the February 25 election argued that the matter goes to the root of Tinubu’s qualification to contest the last presidential election.

However, Tinubu mounted stiff opposition to the release of the documents to Atiku, arguing that Atiku’s request “is unduly intrusive because it allows applicant (Atiku) to conduct a fishing expedition into the intervenor’s private, confidential, and protected educational records.”

He also held that releasing the documents sought would cause him severe, irreparable damage.

But dismissing Tinubu’s objection on Saturday, September 30, Judge Nancy Maldonado of the US District Court in Northern Illinois, said she was only affirming Atiku’s right to have access to the CSU documents, not confirming the merit of his allegations against the Nigerian president or his comments on the validity of the country’s presidential election.

She said: “In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasises that it is expressing no view on the merits of Atiku’s underlying claims regarding President Tinubu or his graduation from CSU, or on the validity of the Nigerian election,” a summary of the judgement read in part.

 Magistrate Judge Jeffery T. Gilbert, of the Northern District Court of Illinois had earlier given a ruling on Tuesday, ordering the CSU to produce “all relevant and non-privileged documents” to Atiku within two days.

 Given the time allowed for Atiku to file the CSU documents at Nigeria’s Supreme Court, Judge Maldonado cautioned Tinubu not to bother applying for a stay of the order, as such application would be denied.

She said: “Given the October 5, 2023 filing deadline before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the court will not extend or modify these deadlines.

 “Further, the court notes that at the recent emergency hearing, the possibility of a stay pending an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was raised. The court cautions President Tinubu that any request for a stay before this court will be denied, as the court finds any stay impracticable in light of the fast-approaching Supreme Court of Nigeria deadlines.

“President Tinubu is, of course, free to request a stay directly from the Seventh Circuit should he file any appeal. Judgement is entered in favour of Atiku Abubakar.”

In effect, within nine weeks, the requests filed by Atiku seeking the release of President Tinubu’s academic records by the CSU were granted. At the end, the released records came on October 3 and a deposition by CSU came on October 4.

The procedural history of Atiku’s US judicial pursuit shows that from its jump-off point to its conclusion, it took less than nine weeks to resolve.

On August 2, 2023, Atiku filed his application (ECF No. 1) and Memorandum (ECF No. 4) in support of his application, seeking discovery from the respondent on the CSU documents at issue. The presiding District Judge referred the application to this Magistrate Judge for resolution. (ECF No. 7).

The day after the application was filed, President Tinubu (Intervenor) filed a Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 10), which the applicant did not oppose. The District Judge granted the Motion to Intervene on August 7, 2023, and the court set a date for Intervenor to file a response to the application and for applicant to file a reply.

On August 23, 2023, CSU filed its response to application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (CSU’s first response) (ECF No. 20), and Intervenor filed his response to application under 28 USC § 1782 (Intervenor’s response)

 On September 6, 2023, applicant filed his reply (ECF No. 22) and notified the court that the Nigerian Court of Appeal reportedly issued a ruling on his election challenge that same day, finding in favour of Intervenor and against applicant.

 Atiku further explained that he had until September 27, 2023, to file his appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which he stated he intended to do. CSU filed its response to court order dated September 8, 2023 (CSU’s second response)

The right to a speedy trial is codified in fundamental legal documents in several jurisdictions, and may be further defined by statutory law.

In jurisdictions with strong rule of law, the requirement of a speedy trial forces prosecutors to diligently build cases within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity and seriousness of the crimes or civil infractions of which suspects are accused.

Many Nigerians have argued that if it were in Nigeria, not only would the case not have commenced, one of the parties would definitely have headed to the Court of Appeal and probably the Supreme Court to stall it.

Nigeria has enough laws to guarantee speedy trial of cases but judges lack the political will to move against the powerful and influential people who contravene the laws.

Corrupt senior lawyers also aid guilty parties to frustrate speedy trials through frivolous applications, requests for adjournments and appeals to appellate courts to stall the proceedings at the lower courts.

Though judicial officers blame lack of technology for protracted court cases, the fact remains that the Nigerian judicial system protects the rich and powerful.

While in most developed countries, the high and mighty are prosecuted and appropriately convicted and sentenced to prison, the same cannot be said of Nigeria where the rich and famous frequently compromise the law enforcement officers and the judiciary to evade arrest, prosecution and conviction.

This is why many analysts feel that what happened in the US is not just a slap on the face of the Nigerian judiciary but law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They posited that the US court in two months uncovered what the Nigerian law enforcement and intelligence agencies combined could not do in 24 years.

Irrespective of how it is viewed, the speedy conclusion of Ekweremadu and Atiku cases by the United Kingdom and United States’ courts, respectively, are a big shame to the Nigerian judiciary.