chukwudi44:

Superior Courts of record refer to all the courts presided over by judges trained in law where there is a duty to record and publish for public access proceedings leading down to a judicial pronouncement. The superior courts of record in Nigeria are listed in section 6(5) of the 1999 constitution.

Inferior courts, on the other hand, may or may not have legal practitioners as presiding officers and are often not obliged to record all proceedings in any matter.




Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (1999).

6. (1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.

(2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State.

(3) The courts to which this section relates, established by this Constitution for the Federation and for the States, specified in subsection (5) (a) to (I) of this section, shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as otherwise prescribed by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a State, each court shall have all the powers of a superior court of record.

(4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as precluding:-

(a) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly from establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with subordinate jurisdiction to that of a High Court;

(b) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly, which does not require it, from abolishing any court which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being.

(5) This section relates to:-

(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;

(b) the Court of Appeal;

(c) the Federal High Court;

(d) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(e) a High Court of a State

(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;

(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a State;

(j) such other courts as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and

(k) such other court as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNige

The superior courts are listed above and the CCT is conspicously missing in that list.

TonyeBarcanista:

Oga The emboldened has ANSWERED you

TonyeBarcanista:

Oga The emboldened has ANSWERED you

989900:


You'll make a very good 'charge and bail' lawyer at best.
How can you quote a part of the constitution that defeats your client?

See my advice to you yesterday about staying off serious issues like this -- at best, you should be reading and learning.

If only you know how strong the CCT is.

DeeManD:


KINDLY READ THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION AGAIN

(3) The courts to which this section relates, established by this Constitution for the Federation and for the States, [size=16pt]specified in subsection (5) (a) to (I) of this section,[/size] shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as otherwise prescribed by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a State, each court shall have all the powers of a superior court of record.

And for the avoidance of doubt, subsection (5)

(a) to (I)

of this section are listed verbatim as:



(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;

(b) the Court of Appeal;

(c) the Federal High Court;

(d) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(e) a High Court of a State

(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;

(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a State;

DeeManD:


KINDLY READ THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION AGAIN

(3) The courts to which this section relates, established by this Constitution for the Federation and for the States, [size=16pt]specified in subsection (5) (a) to (I) of this section,[/size] shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as otherwise prescribed by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a State, each court shall have all the powers of a superior court of record.

And for the avoidance of doubt, subsection (5) (a) to (I) of this section are listed verbatim as:



(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;

(b) the Court of Appeal;

(c) the Federal High Court;

(d) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(e) a High Court of a State

(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;

(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a State;

TonyeBarcanista:

Oga The emboldened has ANSWERED you

abulbanaat:
The drafters of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had inadvertently created the Code of Conduct Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘CCT’] a superior court.

Section 15(2) of the Fifth Schedule says inter alia:

‘The Chairman shall be a person who has held or is qualified to hold office as a JUGDE of a SUPERIOR COURT OF RECORD in Nigeria and shall receive such remuneration as may be prescribed by law.’ [Emphasis mine].

With all intent and purposes, a superior court of record starts from the High Court and finishes at the Supreme Court.

Thus the Chairman of the CCT may even be superior to the Judge of a High Court or a Federal High Court provided he comes from a Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, for instance. Though a Judge higher than the High Court may not be appointed.

If that does not solve the problem, it will however give more force to that explicit clarification in S.18 (4) that ‘Where the Code of Conduct Tribunal gives a decision as to whether or not a person is guilty of a contravention of any of the provisions of this Code, an appeal shall lie as of right from such decision or from any punishment imposed on such person to the Court of Appeal at the instance of any party to the proceedings.’

So the CCT is not an inferior court.

OnReflection:


Did you not read my earlier poser to Pa Chukwudi44:, which he dexterously side-stepped?

Is the National Industrial Court (NIC) regarded as a superior court or not?

More to the point, why is it so difficult to interpret clauses 'j' and 'k' correctly?

Dhugal:

The NIC,is now a superior court of record,recognized so by the 3rd amendment of the Constitution signed by the President March 2011.It is now included in Section 6 as subsection 5(cc).
Before the amendment,all appeals from it lie to the Court of Appeal,same as the CCT and Court Martial,but they were not recognized as superior courts of record.
Any other thing you want to know?

In order to ensure speedy trial, the Act provides in Section 306 that application for stay of proceedings shall no longer be heard until judgment and cannot operate to stall continuation of trial. This is a revolutionary move that is unprecedented given the delays occasioned to the trial process by interlocutory applications to stay proceedings pending appeal on preliminary matters even when the substantive issues are yet to be tried on the merits. What the ACJA has done is to amplify the provisions of the constitution to ensure speedy dispensation of justice. This new law is very progressive, timely and in conformity with international best practices.

The Administration of Justice Act 2015 is the hottest law in the country right now. It is a 495-section law that repealed the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Code as applicable in all federal courts and courts in the FCT. But the Act regulates more than just criminal procedure, it covers, in most part, the entire criminal justice process from arrest, investigation, trial, custodial matters and sentencing guidelines. It is about all things criminal, from the cradle to the grave. All the provisions of the Act are geared towards ensuring that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of all criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, and protection of the rights and interests of the suspect and the victim of crime. It will achieve these objectives by restoring the capacity of the courts and law enforcement agencies, subjecting custodial and other processes to transparent and internal scrutiny, providing for non-custodial alternatives such as community service, providing opportunity to dispense with formal trial in certain circumstances, and giving further expression to various constitutional guarantees on human rights. All regulatory, institutional and even constitutional impediments to achieving these goals were removed.For example, the Act provides in S.306 that application for stay of proceedings shall no longer be heard until judgment and cannot operate to stall continuation of trial. This section is behind a provision in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (currently awaiting presidential assent or parliamentary override of the President’s veto), to the effect that no interlocutory appeal shall operate as a stay of proceedings in the lower court. Then all law enforcement agencies and institutions such as the Police, Prison Service, Ministry of Justice, the Magistrates’ court etc that hitherto engage in unhealthy rivalry must work together and meet regularly.

OnReflection:


Before the amendment, there was ambiguity - yes. But this is not the same as stating that there was absolutely no basis for it to have been regarded as a superior court. My point is, as things stand, the 'Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015' has cleared up any existing fog with respect to the actions taken by the CCT also.



Source: http://www.punchng.com/feature/the-law-you/implications-of-new-administration-of-criminal-justice-act/

Dhugal:

Shifting the goal post now,are you?.The crux of the argument is about superior courts of record,not administration of criminal justice.
Even at that,the CCT is not a criminal but civil court.It can't impose prison sentence.That law applies to superior courts of record of which CCT is not.
Again,the FHC's order came down ever before the CCT sat,so it is not a stay on any ONGOING proceeding.Don't be smart by half.
Btw,quoting Danladi Umar's mischievous statement of being a court of record as evidence is not what I expect of a student of the law I assume you to be.Rather it should be,what does the Constitution and relevant establishment Act say?

Tribunal issues warrant to arrest Nigeria's Senate President Bukola Saraki | TVC News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azUF6xCiguU

Legal Opinions on the Validity of The CCB charges against Saraki And CCT as a Superior Court of Reckoning By Akintunde Iseoluwa

For the following reasons the code of conduct Bureau has not committed any wrong in charging Abubakar Bukola Saraki the Nigerian senate president and neither is the code of conduct Tribunal an inferior court.

1. Saraki was not brought before the Code of Conduct Bureau, but the Code of Conduct Tribunal.The Code of Conduct Tribunal is by no means inferior to the Federal High Court in the constitutional organogram.

First, both courts are both created by the constitution. While Section 249 creates the Federal High Court, section 15 of Part 1 of the First Schedule gives birth to the CCT. They are both offsprings of the constitution and recognised by it.

The FHC is not superior to the CCT in our hierachy of courts as presently set up(aparo kan o ga ju kan lo).This is particularly so when the constitution makes appeal from the CCT lie directly to the Court of Appeal, side-stepping the Federal High Court. Viewed from another perspective, assuming for a minute, but without conceding for a second that the CCT is nothing but an inferior court; in all common law jurisdictions(at least that I am familiar with), the appropriate procedure to strip an inferior court of its jurisdiction is by way of certiorari – an application for judicial review, where a superior is asked to quash the proceedings of an inferior court.

Again, I do not concede that the CCT is an inferior court. To so submit will be an open to constitution qua judicial anarchy. It would mean that a FHC, sitting anywhere, can stop proceedings before an election Tribunal and summon its members! That is the destination of that argument. While an election Tribunal is an ad hoc court, the CCT is not. It’s Chairman is someone qualified to be a Judge of even the Federal High Court. He/She, alongside other members are even appointed by the President on the recommendation of the NJC.

2. On lis pendes, I am yet to see any authority that applies the doctrine to courts of record. Can a court of law be said to be interfering with the processes of another court? Of course. But that situation is christened abuse of court process, and not lis pendes. Starting from Ojukwu v Gov.of Lagos, leading to the decision in Olowoleeni, and crystallizing in Ezegbu v FATB, the doctrine applies to litigants and not courts. A party’s constitutional right to approach a court never be a violation of the doctrine of lis pendes. On abuse of court process, it is trite that if one suit is abusive of another, it is the latter in time that will be dismissed. Here, the latter is the one before Mohammed of the FHC. Even at that, I think the principle is of remote applicability here.

3. Finally, how can any court and/or any counsel submit, in good conscience, that the fact there is no AG means no action can be brought in the name of the AG. Haba! The Supreme Court laid this controversy to rest more than a decade ago in AG Federation v ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 182, by holding that the office of the Attorney General is a body corporate with perpetual succession, and continues to function, irrespective of whether there is a sitting AG or not. Although I do not agree with GMB’s approach of “searching for anti corruption judges”, I think I now see his point. Except the judiciary is populated by judges who are deeply soaked and well versed in law and treat corruption like the Egyptian plague; lawyers who will eschew arguments that will favour their clients and destroy the judicial system; court clerks who will do their jobs, and not hide files because of a ridiculous ‘tip’, the war against corruption is a non-starter; dead on arrival.

OnReflection:


No, I am not a student of law.
I am however aware that most respondents including yourself appear to be in the dark on the overarching reach of 'The Administration of Justice Act 2015'.

chukwudi44:

Superior Courts of record refer to all the courts presided over by judges trained in law where there is a duty to record and publish for public access proceedings leading down to a judicial pronouncement. The superior courts of record in Nigeria are listed in section 6(5) of the 1999 constitution.

Inferior courts, on the other hand, may or may not have legal practitioners as presiding officers and are often not obliged to record all proceedings in any matter.




Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria (1999).

6. (1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.

(2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State.

(3) The courts to which this section relates, established by this Constitution for the Federation and for the States, specified in subsection (5) (a) to (I) of this section, shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria; and save as otherwise prescribed by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly of a State, each court shall have all the powers of a superior court of record.

(4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as precluding:-

(a) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly from establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with subordinate jurisdiction to that of a High Court;

(b) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly, which does not require it, from abolishing any court which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being.

(5) This section relates to:-

(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;

(b) the Court of Appeal;

(c) the Federal High Court;

(d) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(e) a High Court of a State

(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;

(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a State;

(j) such other courts as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and

(k) such other court as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNige

The superior courts are listed above and the CCT is conspicously missing in that list.

j) such other courts as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and

(k) such other court as may be authorised by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws