Osun LG Fund: How Magistrate Adeyeba Upholds the Law, Supreme Court Rulings and the Constitution

Read Time:2 Minute, 49 Second

By Public Interest Media

Certain legal rules are not disputable even in the worst of impunity. They have been tested up to the Supreme Court in several cases. According to Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Lay 2015, you cannot stay a criminal proceeding.

In Nigeria, the principle that criminal cases should not be delayed or “stayed” for other proceedings is primarily governed by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Key aspects of this rule include:

Abolition of Stay of Proceedings: Section 306 of the ACJA 2015 expressly prohibits applications for a stay of proceedings in criminal trials. This means a trial cannot be stopped just because a party has filed an interlocutory appeal on a specific point of law.

Priority of Criminal Trials: Criminal proceedings generally take priority to ensure that the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time is upheld.

Judicial Hardship on Delays: The Supreme Court has condemned the practice of using irrelevant applications and appeals to stall trials, urging courts to ensure cases proceed to a conclusion without interruption.

Exception for Jurisdiction: While trials should not be stayed, if a genuine issue of jurisdiction is raised, the court may choose to resolve that issue before proceeding, though even these rulings are often encouraged to be delivered alongside the final judgment to prevent stalling.

Discontinuance: A criminal case can only be formally stopped (discontinued) by the Attorney General through a nolle prosequi or by the prosecutor withdrawing the charge with the court’s permission.

When Magistrate Adeyeba ruled against UBA, it was in compliance with the extant law on criminal justice administration and judicial precedents as set by the Supreme Court.

If he had disobeyed the law, the illegal chairmen would continue to spend local government funds in collusion with the UBA.

If he had allowed for frivolous interlocutory appeal, criminal actions involving the UBA and the court sacked chairmen will continue unabated.

If he had listened to the UBA counsel despite clear provisions of the law, Magistrate Adeyeba would have encouraged the stalling of a case that borders on illegal handling of billions of local government funds which are currently being criminally handled.

Within the law, judicial precedents and the constitution, Magistrate Adeyeba had acted to protect public funds from further diversion into private pockets.

By binding the UBA, Magistrate Adeyeba had saved local teachers, local pensioners and local health workers whose salaries and allowances are withheld and being shared by unelected officials.

Counsels to the UBA and the illegal and the court sacked chairmen cannot dodge the real trial. They must account for their illegal conduct of violating Osun local laws on opening of local government accounts and the management of local government finances.

UBA must be held accountable and criminally liable for wilfully violating the state law and for colluding with court sacked chairmen with expired self awarded tenure to divert public funds into private pockets.

No legal technicalities by anti-people lawyers can save a bank that has chosen to be part of a criminal endeavour and enterprise from answering to the law.

Even in the worst reign of impunity, violators of the law and enablers of public corruption must face the consequences of their illegal and criminal actions.