Verification of sureties by police, EFCC, others faulted

A group, Vanguard for Judicial Independence, has faulted prosecuting agencies’ verification of sureties for bail, describing the practice was unconstitutional.

In a statement by its Convener, Douglas Ogbankwa, the group maintained that it was unconstitutional for court to direct law enforcement agencies such as the police and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to verify sureties.

The organisation observed: “It offends the principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ (no man shall be judge in his own cause) for prosecutors to be asked to verify sureties of defendants in a criminal prosecution.
 
“What it means is that a court that asks the EFCC or police or others to verify sureties has not just taken sides in the matter, but has surrendered its sovereignty to another party.”
 
According to Ogbankwa, such action offends Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides that the court should be constituted in a way and manner that guarantees its independence and impartiality.

He continued: “Fair hearing is not just fairness in the hearing of a matter, but fairness in the procedures observed before a verdict is reached.
 
“Justice is a three-way traffic: justice for the state, justice for the defendant and justice for the complainant.
 
“Any unfair advantage given to any party negates the values of justice depicted by the statue of justice, which is blind and has a balanced scale.”
 
Ogbankwa noted that some prosecutors might muzzle defendants in a way that makes the bail process rigorous.
 
“There are defendants who remain in custody for close to one year because of these avoidable legal hiccups,” he added.

He urged the judiciary to review the process of verification of sureties. The convener also urged courts to adopt liberal bail conditions to save defendants from staying longer than necessary in custody.