I omobuwa cam
Firstly, the Supreme Court decision did not follow the doctrine of would be accorded its proper place in the case, the Supreme Court should have ordered a retrial by the LPDC, more so as that would have in no way occasioned double jeopardy.By the authority of a plethora of appellate decisions, including (2019) LPELR-46379(SC), some of the situations where an appellate court may order a retrial by a trial court or tribunal (usually by a different judge) are if it overrules a no-case submission of a defendant, where there had been a possible miscarriage of justice during the trial and where the trial done earlier was null and void.In the leading judgment, Cletus Nweze, JSC, upheld Mr.
Indeed, the court of justice has always been cognizant of the fact that it must sometimes not be slavish to procedure in as much as the procedure complained of has done no injury to any of the two limbs of natural justice or fair hearing, which are respectively .
The apex court decision has been severely criticized by legal practitioners across the nation.
As a matter of fact, the NBA National Executive Committee meeting, that held in Abuja on March 28, 2019, expressed concern over the judgment while discussing its grave implications.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court decision in the case under review is also unsustainable because it is rather a setback to the anti-corruption war of the Federal Government and of the NBA through the LPDC.
The decision was inconsistent with the erstwhile anti-corruption decisions of the Supreme Court from(2018) 10 NWLR (Pt 1626) 169 SC where it recently held that the burden lies on an accused person to explain the source of the properties that he acquired which are disproportionate to his known legitimate earnings.