paragon40:
fair hearing u say? was the accused person denied fair hearing? NO he was not, the judge listened to both sides .. the defence counsel actually interrupted that process of fair hearing.. the judge said let us start with the cross examination and the defence, disobeyed that..

Tenim47:
pls anybody wit, dos gals dat poisons general abacha's apples address? someone stil nid to eat it

sapiosexual1:
This justice Umar sef, his gra gra is too much. Didn't he see how Jega handled Orubebe?
As a judge, you have all the power on you, you should be more graceful than this.

989900:
'I say sit down!'

The lawyer was way outta line.

Scenes like this happen in our courts, especially the lower courts.

The judge didn't apply finesse; he needs to take some 'Jegarphy' courses.

It is easy for the judge to lose his cool and calm with all the drama Saraki, the NASS, and the 80-90 lawyers got on him -- he is human, he was just about commencing 'cross-witnessing' when the loquacious lawyer started off . . . yarning EFCC yada, yada, yada, . . .

The CCT judge is partly part of the prosecution in this case i.e. the CCT is the prosecuting arm of the CCB -- can't be entirely neutral as y'all would want to assume.

Pa Chukwudi44, over to you.

odikimi:

Please read the following cases and see the Supreme Court decisions on what fair hearing is:
Audu v. FRN,
Nnana v. Uso,
Jang v. INEC,
Babalola v. Oshogbo L.G.,
Uniuyo v. Nse,
Sule v. Ebule,
Odessa v.FRN,
Falodun v. Olunge
also research on the legal maxims, nemo judex in causa sua

ElCapone:
he shldnt hav sat down nw make him see if them no go trow am out of court. Idiatz!!

manny4life:


Should a court of law (whether it's CCB or the federal courts) be neutral or not? I beg to differ that the CCT judge is part of the prosecution, the Bureau is an independent body which I believe was setup as an act of Congressional or rather Constitutional Authority to preside over corruption cases NOT a body setup by EFCC. And by this act, the judge and all participants of the court must adhere to rules set by the court as granted by law.

paragon40:
I'm not new to fair hearing
the doctrine of fair hearing has two principles:
i. audi alteram partem---------- a party should not be condemned unheard.
ii. nemo judex in causa sua -------- u can't be the judge in your own case.

2. Now justice Umar is not the judge in his own case here because his not the prosecuting counsel/fed govt. don't forget the ''he who alleges must prove'' (Affaimanti non neganti incumbit Probatio) which is bn done by the prosecuting counsel. against the Saraki... and UMAR in the 'EYES' of the Law is the independent man (Judge).

3. ther cant be fair hearing when you are the Judge and the same time, the prosecuting counsel.... any form of judgment obtained in this form, cant stand. because the accused person has not bn allowed to defend himself. From the above Saraki was allowed to defend himself but was looking for a way to scuttle the process of justice,that is why we have a court of Appeal.. rascality is rascality and Lawyers should not follow that path.

itstpia8:


who is Agabi?

odikimi:

Fair hearing as enshrined under section 36 (1) entails that, the judge shall be seen as fair to parties. The judge shall not be heard making unhealthy comments by; conduct or words. See Unwadara v. Ume. The Supreme Court in the above case held that, where there is allegation of bias, The judge has to excuse himself or determine the allegation of bias before going ahead or else it will amount to the judge showing interest in the matter. see also Nnana v. Ugo
Fair hearing entails that the judge must not have any interest in the matter. Umar is having an issue with the EFCC, allowing to preside over an issue with EFCC staff as a star witness entails that he will compromise to save himself. See the case of Adegoke v. The State.
see the case of oyakhire v. The State. please read this case on accelerated hearing to the detriment of the defence counsel, where the Supreme Court held that it amounts to miscarriage of justice in all intents

manny4life:
I am not in anyway supporting Saraki and his thugs, but watching the video again, the lawyer started off by honestly asking the judge to recuse himself from this matter. He gave reasons why he should recuse himself, which I believe is a honorable request. The judge should have simply directed the lawyer where he should address his grievances but instead, he got mad and telling him to "Sit down" like as if he doesn't want the lawyer exposing him.... He's losing cool points in my book .

ISpiksDaTroof:
He should recuse himself then what? The case should start all over again? And when a new Judge is assigned, once they get to this stage of the trial again they'll ask that one to recuse himself too, right?

I had already started replying this then I saw who it was.... I'll still reply it anyway even though I know nothing will get through your block head.

The Judge is not there to gain "Cool Points" from you. Nor is he there for the benefit of those that want to make mockery of the court. This is serious, and it should be treated as such.

paragon40:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/04/efcc-clears-cct-chairman-umar-n10m-bribery/

odikimi:

This news happened just yesterday or a day before.
So tell me what you think conspired between them to come up with this junk clearance?
When you judge from objective angle u will see what I am seeing.
I am the most objective man here because I hate Saraki like my poo. I want him to die in jail, but it has to be judiciously and judicially done. I hate him the way I hate BH.
However, a minister in the temple of justice, all I am agitating for is to see that justice is not only be done but seen to have being done. I despise injustice to whoever in the society.

Airpure:
A judge has the right to hold a lawyer in contempt of court and even send him to Jail if he wants . A Judge has ultimate power in the court room what the lawyer can now do is submit his motion to have him recuse himself and bring it up during appeal. The Judge wasted his energy to shout he should have just held him in contempt and have him removed .

paragon40:
I know the way you feel bro... but the fact in issue (bribe) is no way related to saraki's trial.. the bribe in question is not related to Saraki's case at all, Which I think the judge is also entitled to "presumption of innocence" as enshrined in the Constitution .. U will agree with me that morality is not Law, Even though they tend to clash a times... does it mean all accused persons standing trial at the tribunal, will tell Justice Umar that the Efcc said he collected bribe hence he cant continue with their case..

paragon40:
I know the way you feel bro... but the fact in issue (bribe) is no way related to saraki's trial.. the bribe in question is not related to Saraki's case at all, Which I think the judge is also entitled to "presumption of innocence" as enshrined in the Constitution .. U will agree with me that morality is not Law, Even though they tend to clash a times... does it mean all accused persons standing trial at the tribunal, will tell Justice Umar that the Efcc said he collected bribe hence he cant continue with their case..

eLcastro:
u serious.,u haven't seen a lawyer tryin to intimidate d judge b4 or is dis peculiar to saraki case...lawyers do dis all the time...it's a way to provoke/intimidate d judge...u jus blowin ish outa proportion

diva90:


It's not proper! It's not done in developed countries where there is proper law and order and the judiciary is highly revered

donphilopus:
[s][/s]

Cry me a river! Did you not see the letter from EFCC which shows the man has since been cleared? It even passed through the desk of the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) under Jonathan, Anyim Pius Anyim. Why then is this silly counsel to Saraki bringing up the issue that has since been concluded again? Umar was even too cool on him.

If Saraki is found guilty, there's nothing you lots can do about it. You would only wail and wail!