By EMMANUEL OGEBE

Recently, judges were sanctioned by the NJC for delivering judgments past 90 days in violation of constitutional time limits. “Council issued a final warning to Hon. Justice G. B. Okolosi of the Delta State High Court for continued (sic) flouting Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and Hon. Justice Sa’adatu I. Mark, Federal High Court received caution for delivering judgment after constitutional 90 days.” https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/full-listnjc-sacks-10-judges-clears-9-imo-judges-from-age-falsification-allegation-restates-directive-to-imo-governor-to-swear-in-the-most-senior-judge-as-acting-chief-judge/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLQVbRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHkXjgoP1Jg_JD2YketvkLceWwl0zUSlUz6E1nQJx8m4A-3i1LmrZOrEdY_4V_aem_alUMNZZQZLQn85_7-QBldw&amp=1

The big question now Is, if a judge can be sanctioned by the National Judicial Council for giving a judgment after the expiration of 90 days, why should Sunday Jackson be hanged over an “expired” 167-day judgment?

Sunday Jackson is the 20 year old Adamawa student who defended himself when attacked on his farm by a Fulani herdsman and cattle in 2015.

For stabbing the attacker back with his own knife, Jackson was finally condemned to die by hanging by the Supreme Court on March 7, 2025 after over a decade in prison.

Some controversy has arisen over the fact that one of the judgments against him was outside the constitutional 90-day window.

It first arose in this correction where Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN said, “I noticed that an earlier version of the following article was erroneously published…For the avoidance of doubt, the delay was not caused by the Supreme Court but by the Court of Appeal”. https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/clarification-justice-denied-the-supreme-courts-judgment-in-sunday-jacksons-self-defence-case/

Unfortunately this is wrong as it was the trial high court that made that error and not the court of appeal or Supreme Court.

Accordingly even his “final correct version” earlier published by the Thisday Lawyer on Tuesday May 6, 2025 as follows was also erroneous:

“Overview of the Supreme Court Judgement: Points of Concern

The Supreme Court Overlooked Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in the Court of Appeal’s Judgement.

One of the most glaring issues with the judgement, is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgement delivery. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgement within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions were adopted on the 27th of August, 2020, judgement was not delivered by the Court of Appeal until the 10th of February, 2021, a staggering 167-day delay.”

Per Ozekhome “Readers should therefore ignore that portion of my humble critique of the Jackson judgement that appears to erroneously give the impression that the delay was caused by the Supreme Court whereas it was the lower court (the Court of Appeal)” – however it was neither.

In my press release after returning from the unfortunate judgment delivery at the Supreme Court on March 7, 2025, I noted, inter alia:

“in a gross travesty of Justice, JACKSON was sentenced to death in 2021 after being in prison for (six) years. Regrettably today the Supreme Court upheld his death sentence 10 years after.

“This is despite a constitutional infraction notable in the judgment of the High Court of Yola that was appealed…

“The 1999 constitution was amended to afford expeditious dispensation of justice to litigants by the prescription of 90 days within which a judgment must be delivered from close of final addresses.

“Judgments so rendered out of time are void or as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act provides are voidable if miscarriage of justice was occasioned thereby.

“The facts of this case are a textbook case of miscarriage of justice…Due to the prolonged period of time from close of arguments to the rendering of judgment – a whooping 167 days almost double the constitutional 90 days – the judge had confused the facts of the case resulting in a horrendous miscarriage of justice and as such it must be voided.

“The extensive effluxion of time from the constitutionally mandated 90 days to judgment delivery to 167 days prejudiced the Appellant and resulted in a grievous miscarriage of justice. Emmanuel Ogebe, Esq.”

Incidentally Sunday Jackson himself in his clemency petition to the governor of Adamawa state said, “The Non Adherence to Constitutional Requirement by the Trial Court

According to Section 294(1) of the Constitution, a court shall deliver its judgement, within 90 days after the final addresses. And where 90 days have elapsed and the complaining party can show that such delay has caused a miscarriage of Justice, the decision can be vitiated, because such prolonged delay, can taint the court’s mind, by rendering it to fading memory or unfair biases due to the time lapse.

The case of Ifezue v. Mbadugha and Agip v. Agip Petrol Int. are instructive in this regard.

In my case, the statement of facts of the Appellant’s brief of argument was that “the defendant testified for himself on the 27th day of February, 2020 and the matter was

Adjourned to the 27th day of August 2020 for the adoption of final Written addresses of counsel to the prosecution and the defence. Judgment was delivered on the 10th day of February, 2021.”

An ordinary calculation of the time between the adoption of final addresses of counsel on August 27, 2020 and the delivery of judgment on February 10, 2021 amounts to in excess of 167 days.

Most recently, the Supreme Court in the 2024 case of Ani v. State, held that where judgement is delivered after the 90 days window, and such delay has occasioned a miscarriage of Justice, thus, the judgement is liable to be set aside. The Judge at the trial court, had confused the facts which led to the death sentence delivered against me.

I have been devastated emotionally and mentally, as I have had to deal with the pain of this grave injustice against me. I have never set eyes on my 10 year daughter all these years, as she was born after my arrest.

In light of these circumstances, I urge your Excellency to exercise your prerogative of mercy and grant me a pardon, particularly as I have also spent ten years in the correctional facility, through the determination of this case. This would be a just and compassionate decision, considering the clear miscarriage of justice that has occurred in this case.”

From the above, it is clear that Justice Fatima Tafida did not deliver the death sentence judgment on Jackson within 90 days. What effect does this have?

This 90-day issue, I first detected upon review of the high court’s judgment in February 2021 and urged the legal aid counsel representing Sunday Jackson to include it on appeal as I did with successive counsel.

I was therefore shocked that the issue was not addressed in the 62page Supreme Court judgement. Whether or not it was properly raised, filed or argued, a standard practice of the apex court or indeed any appellate court should be to see if basic benchmarks of a valid judgment were met prior to reviewing the substantive arguments in the case.

My victory at the U.S. court of appeal in my defamation suit against Dow Jones & Co and the Wall Street Journal was prior to filing of formal briefs and without argument.

The US appellate court on a cursory review of my appeal and informal brief agreed that the trial judge did not satisfy certain basic benchmarks and sent it back to the District Court suo moto.

The Supreme Court could have raised the issue of the expired judgment on its own and this has happened in political cases where trial deadlines have run out. However the issue with the 90-day expired judgments is that it is incumbent on a party to show that they were prejudiced by the delayed judgment.

It is humbly submitted that appellant’s counsel did demonstrate the prejudicial impact of the trial judge substituting her personal opinion for evidence which arguably flows naturally from a prolonged delay before judgment (even if the expiry wasn’t specifically pleaded.)

Apart from the ones stated by counsel, other notable errors include her saying Jackson stabbed his attacker three times on the throat when the medical report never mentioned a specific number of stabs but only said multiple stabs in the “neck region” NOT “throat.”

It Is strongly recommended that every appellate court should have a checklist against which each judgment should be assessed for competency including a 90-day compliance check. This should urgently be introduced to save other Jacksons possibly among the over 6000 Nigerians on deathrow now.

Secondly, it is submitted that victims of expired judgements should be vindicated. If a judge can be punished for an expired judgment, what happens to the person who is punished by the judgment?

As it stands, Justice Tafida has retired from the Yola High Court so NJC might not be able to sanction her as a serving judge although it might be able to blacklist or bar her from holding any judicial related board membership. However what of Jackson the victim of her expired judgement who is now set to be hanged?

•Emmanuel Ogebe is a Washington-based international human rights lawyer and advocate for Sunday Jackson.