By Prof. Mike A.A. Ozekhome, SAN
Introduction
I noticed that an earlier version of the following article was erroneously published and of particular interest is the paragraph that dealt with the over 90 days delay of judgement. For the avoidance of doubt, the delay was not caused by the Supreme Court but by the Court of Appeal. The final correct version of that portion had earlier been published by the Thisday Lawyer on Tuesday May 6, 2025. It is as follows:
“Overview of the Supreme Court Judgement: Points of Concern
The Supreme Court Overlooked Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in the Court of Appeal’s Judgement.
Read Aso: Justice Denied? The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunday Jackson’s Self-defence case
One of the most glaring issues with the judgement, is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgement delivery. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgement within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions were adopted on the 27th of August, 2020, judgement was not delivered by the Court of Appeal until the 10th of February, 2021, a staggering 167-day delay.
This delay not only breached the Constitution, but also the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the State, which guards against undue delay in criminal trials. And, as the saying goes, justice delaved is justice denied. See the cases of COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EKIADOLOR & ORS v OBAYAGBONA (1028) LPELR-40154 (CA) and DIAMOND BANK PIC v SLIMPOT (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR-41612 (CA).
Such irregularities are not mere technicalities, when the life of an accused is on the line. Legal precedent and statutory provisions affirm that a judgement delivered outside constitutional limits is voidable, especially when it could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Yet, the Supreme Court chose to sidestep this error, affirming a death sentence based on a tainted process. The implications of this oversight go beyond Jackson’s case; it undermines public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to uphold its own rules.”
Readers should therefore ignore that portion of my humble critique of the Jackson judgement that appears to erroneously give the impression that the delay was caused by the Supreme Court whereas it was the lower court (the Court of Appeal).
