by 
By Mezie Abia
The law is no rocket science, the tipping point for the law is always nigh, that is why in most cases, it’s required of us to think beyond prejudice and travesty to understand the blunt statement of law in every given case and every situation before we adjudge.
“Corrupt lawyers defended Orji Kalu, corrupt judges set him free blablabla ” these statements were people’s reactions during today’s people and politics discourse on the radio. I wouldn’t know how many persons that listened to the radio this morning.
Lawyers and judges are not corrupt, they are not liars. Do you know what they do?
Lawyers only make use of the lacuna in the law and loopholes in the opponents argument to advance their clients’ cases while the judges sit to listen to lawyers talk the law and nothing more.
It’s nolonger news that Orji Kalu has been released from prison following an order of a Federal High Court Holden at Lagos. To be candid, such injunction was favourably done. It wasn’t strange to me, because I saw it coming and also forespoke that it would happen. My arguments and opinions were right as the high court has done nothing but Justice to uphold the statement of law.
However, Orji Kalu’s release from the prison does not acquit him of the alleged crimes, it does not amount to “AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.”
Let me break my point down to a layman’s language.
A plea of “autrefois acquit” in law is literarily, a defensive plea that set out special reason for why a defendant shall cease to face a criminal trial. By this plea, a defendant claims to have been previously acquitted for the same offence and thus should not be tried again. In Orji’s case he was not acquitted of any crime by the Supreme Court, thus cannot stand to benefit from the doctrine of autrefois acquit.
Legal eagles who engage in everyday brush with the law agree that it is unethical, out of proportion and against the ethics of professional conduct for lawyers, learned or learning, to discuss in public either partly or in whole a case that is sub-judice. It’s wrong in law to make a preemptive bid at bridge.
But in a genuine bid to elucidate some persons who misperceived the ruling of the supreme Court, I would be overtly explicit and not twist my statements blindly to suit anyone’s timing.
In a couple of days from now, Orji Kalu would be back to the Federal High Court again as a defendant to answer a criminal case of money laundering, and he would be coming back alongside Jones Udeogu and Slok Nig.Ltd. to face the trial de novo.
Would the retrial succeed?
Ipso jure (by operation of the law), the retrial would successfully continue and Orji Kalu alongside other defendants must appear before the court to answer the criminal charges against them.
Luckily, Orji Kalu has an escape route in law if he can manage his relationship with the State judiciously. In this case, the doctrine of “NOLLE PROSEQUI” would perfectly do the magic and Orji shall remain a free man all the days of his life without completing his criminal trial.
“Nolle Prosequi” is an exclusive power vested in the Attorney-General of the Federation and of the states respectively to discontinue the prosecution of any criminal act before any court at any stage before judgement is delivered.
Section 174 Subsection 1 paragraphs B&C of the 1999 constitution empowered the Attorney General of the federation to come into such matter.
One would inquisitively ask if the Attorney General can discontinue a criminal proceeding even when there is enough evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused person(s)?
The Attorney General’s power to enter a nolle prosequi in any criminal case is supreme and unquestionable. That reminds me of the erstwhile case of EZOMO V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL BENDEL STATE, where
the Supreme Court held that the power of the
Attorney General is not subject to review by anybody; not even the Courts. When the AG exercises this power, he cannot be compelled to do otherwise or take back his words even by the court.
Also by the proviso of Section 108 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the Attorney General can still instruct the EFCC to withdraw any charge against Orji Kalu and others.
Centeris paribus, I wish OUK well as he would have his day in court soonest.
