By PROF MIKE A.A. OZEKHOME, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIARB
An earlier version of the following article was mistakenly published, and the portion that addressed the more than 90-day wait in ruling caught my attention. To be clear, the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court, was the reason for the delay. The Thisday Lawyer had previously published the final, accurate version of that section on Tuesday, May 6, 2025. This is what it is:
Overview of the Supreme Court’s Decision: Important Considerations In the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the Supreme Court disregarded procedural irregularities and constitutional violations. The court’s inability to address a basic procedural violation—the excessive delay in judgement delivery—is one of the most obvious problems with the ruling. The Federal Republic of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulates in Section 294(1) that courts must render decisions within ninety days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, the Court of Appeal did not give its verdict until February 10, 2021, a startling 167-day delay, following the adoption of final written submissions on August 27, 2020.
In addition to violating the Constitution, this delay also violated the State’s Administration of Criminal Justice Law, which prohibits excessive delays in criminal proceedings. Additionally, as they say, “justice denied is justice delaved.” Refer to the instances of DIAMOND BANK PIC v. SLIMPOT (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR-41612 (CA) and COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EKIADOLOR & ORS v. OBAYAGBONA (1028) LPELR-40154 (CA).
When an accused person’s life is at stake, such irregularities are more than just a formality. A verdict rendered outside the bounds of the constitution is voidable, according to legal precedent and statutory regulations, particularly if it might constitute a miscarriage of justice. However, the Supreme Court decided to avoid this mistake and upheld a death sentence based on a flawed procedure. This error has ramifications beyond Jackson’s case; it erodes public trust in the judiciary’s capacity to enforce its own laws.
Therefore, readers should disregard the part of my modest criticism of the Jackson ruling that seems to mistakenly suggest that the Supreme Court was responsible for the delay when, in fact, the Court of Appeal was the one responsible.
