CONCLUSION
The following observations have been made in this research work which dealt with the challenges of holding charge practice by the police in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria.
Firstly, the police no doubt are empowered by statutes apart from their general duties of preservation of Law and order, protection of life and property, enforcement of law and order, detecting and prevention of crimes, also to prosecute criminal cases in court. Infact, the prosecution powers of the police in all courts in Nigeria have gained judicial validation in the case of Olusemo v. Commissioner of Police[1]. And majority of these prosecutions are carried out or at least started by the police at the Magistrate Court. But the police more often than not drag suspects to magistrate court on indictable offences to secure remand order before proceeding on investigation. This is notwithstanding that the magistrate lacks jurisdiction on those offences. Through the order of the magistrate such an accused or suspect is remanded in prison till God knows when.
However, the constitution of Nigeria grants the suspect or accused person certain rights. For instance, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He or she is entitled to be represented by a counsel of his or her choice. He or she has a right to bail except in few circumstances where bail is not allowed, because of the gravity of the offence or for other reasonable cause. The accused has a right to speedy trial because of the cardinal principle of law that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.
Thus, it is my humble opinion that this practice by the police and any law sanctioning it is illegal and unconstitutional. As it offend the provisions of the constitution.
Secondly, by using the instrument of holding charge, the police usually keep the suspect in detention, whilst evidence of guilt are sought. This practice is the main cause of congestion in Nigerian prisons. Many people that are not supposed to be in prison are there because of a failure of investigation. As a corollary, this has increased the government spending in equipping and maintaining little amenities in the prisons.
Finally, the research work discussed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. E.A Lufadeju and Anor.v. Evangelist Bayo Johnson[2], wherein the court held that the provision of Section 236(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law. Cap. 33, vol. 2 Laws of Lagos State 1994 - 4 did not conflict with the provisions of the constitution. And thereby held valid a remand order made by Magistrate Court pursuant to that section, even though the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the substantive matter.
During the examination of this case, I observed that the apex Court based its judgment on no point of law. The court was in want of where to lay its hand and finally introduced what it called remand proceedings which the Court per Niki Tobi said that “Although remand proceedings is not set out in the Criminal Procedure Law, it is known that the charge is not read to the accused and therefore no plea taken…” What the court was saying is that apart from the arraignment of the suspect or an accused, which is the genesis of criminal trial, a suspect could also be brought to the court for the purpose of conducting remand proceedings, and in the proceedings, the magistrate Court will be faced with two options, one to remand an accused or to grant bail to him.
In my humble opinion, this position is legally wrong because in a capital offence where the magistrate lacked the requisite jurisdiction, the law is that it cannot make any order whatsoever. Again the remand proceeding is not provided for either in the constitution and the provision of the Constitution supersede any law made therein after.
