Jurisdiction of Selected Tribunals in Nigeria Essay Example

in terms of cost-effectiveness, speed, efficiency, privacy, and informality. Our examination of courts is guided by convenience in the decision-making process. It is crucial to note that all our courts share a common origin as products of the military's response to perceived national challenges. The objective of this paper is to analyze the authority of various tribunals established under different acts in Nigeria. Specifically, it will investigate the "Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunal)" (10(B)), the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act (11), the Miscellaneous Offenses Tribunal (12), and the Exchange Control (Anti-Sabotage) Act for vitamin D(13). The Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunal) Act was implemented to probe assets owned by public officers accused of corrupt practices, unfair enrichment, or violating the code of conduct for public officers outlined in the Constitution. This legislation was deemed necessary due to rampant corruption and abuse of power during the Second Republic.The Robbery and Firearms Tribunal Act and the Miscellaneous Offenses Tribunal (Special Tribunal) Act were both enacted to address specific issues related to armed robbery and a variety of offenses, respectively. The objective of the government in establishing these tribunals can be inferred from the range of offenses they would try. Additionally, the Exchange Control (Anti-Sabotage) Act led to the establishment of a tribunal specifically dedicated to dealing with violations of exchange control laws.

Concerns were raised about the lack of appeal provision in the courts established by the military government, leading critics to argue that principles of natural justice were violated. These critics saw this as a lack of trust in the judiciary system and a vote of no confidence in their role, reducing

it to mere advisory capacity while favoring the executive branch.Babangida's disposal addressed concerns by amending the Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunal) Decree of 1984 to create a "Special Appeal Tribunal". This amendment allowed for higher tribunal review and recognized that even within a military government context, entities are not perfect and can make mistakes. Opinions on the role of Courts in Nigeria's Legal System were divided for specific cases. Some believed that regular legal tribunals may not be suitable for prosecuting public officials who have unlawfully enriched themselves and aim to recover their assets. They argued that court procedures are slow, complicated, and often lead to confusion and delays due to unnecessary details introduced by lawyers. Additionally, it was believed that endless resolutions lack public support and assuming only lawyers can be impartial is incorrect. The ability to interpret the law is not exclusive to learned individuals as judges may be detached from societal issues. These positions led to the establishment of Tribunals under the Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunals) Act in order to promptly investigate and trial cases related to economic mismanagement in Nigeria.However, there are those who argue that while it is important to take urgent action in response to the economic crisis, the interests and rights of ordinary individuals should also be taken into account. Despite Nigeria's current circumstances necessitating an increase in court usage, it is unreasonable to excessively utilize courts in a way that undermines their authority and expertise. The Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunal) Act grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to investigate public officers involved in corruption, economic hardship, code of conduct violations, or

any attempts to aid or counsel such activities. According to the Robbery and Firearms (Particular Commissariats) Act, a Tribunal has jurisdiction over individuals engaged in discourteous actions as outlined in Section 26. This includes those who commit armed robbery themselves or with others who are armed, as well as individuals who assault others with intent to steal and use force or threaten force. Individuals found possessing weapons indicating an intention to commit robbery in a public place may be subject to court trial. The Assorted Offenses Tribunal established under the Particular Tribunal (Miscellaneous Offenses) Act holds authority over offenses such as forging and uttering negotiable instruments. Intentional destruction of public property encompasses arson on various structures including public buildings, homes, offices - whether occupied or not - vehicles, vessels, aircrafts; railway tracks; wagons; mines; facilities; and equipment.The unlawful activities mentioned above encompass not only the arson of agricultural produce, minerals, or fossil fuels but also include tampering with oil pipelines and highways. Furthermore, there are offenses related to importation/exportation of minerals/mineral ores. It is strictly prohibited to manipulate electric plants, cables, and devices used for electricity transformation or conversion. This prohibition also extends to tampering with electrical adjustments, meters, generation devices, transmission equipment, and sale-related tools. Additionally, interfering with telephone wires and postal matters is considered illegal. Engaging in improper exportation or trading of forbidden goods is a violation as well. Strict prohibitions are also in place for the importation and exportation of dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. Cheating during examinations falls under intentional destruction offense category as well. Dealing with petroleum products can lead to serious consequences while corruption related to petroleum products

concludes the list of unlawful activities mentioned above.The Exchange Control (Anti-sabotage) Act gives jurisdiction to a tribunal over individuals who engage in certain activities without permission from the appropriate authority. These activities include making payments to individuals inside or outside Nigeria on behalf of someone residing outside Nigeria before or after October 1st, 1979. Additionally, residents in Nigeria are prohibited from making payments abroad for loans, bank overdrafts, or credit facilities, as well as depositing funds into the account of a person residing outside Nigeria without permission. Similarly, residents in Nigeria are not allowed to make payments within Nigeria for the benefit of another resident without permission. Furthermore, residents in Nigeria are restricted from making international payments on behalf of another resident for receiving foreign funds or acquiring property located outside Nigeria. Lastly, transporting currency to an individual or giving preferential treatment towards their rights involving payments made abroad or acquiring property registered elsewhere is also prohibited.Unauthorized traders who reside within or near Nigeria are engaging in unauthorized foreign currency trading activities without approval. They are also selling or lending foreign currency without permission, and engaging in negotiations or borrowing foreign currency abroad. Additionally, it is prohibited to transport any security or create and transport any interest in a security to an individual resident outside Nigeria without permission. Similarly, the transportation of securities from a registry in Nigeria to a registry outside Nigeria, as well as acts related to securities registered inside or outside Nigeria, are not allowed. The text also highlights the prohibition of owning securities registered in Nigeria by individuals residing outside the country. Moreover, acquiring or disposing of any foreign security is

strictly forbidden. Counterfeiting or falsifying documents required for obtaining permission under the Act is prohibited, as well as dealing with matters related to obtaining such permission. Furthermore, accepting, receiving, or using these mentioned documents knowingly is against the law.Counterfeiting any seal, signature, initials, or other mark used by an officer for authenticating these documents is illegal. Altering officially issued documents pertaining to the previous point is also not permitted. Additionally, engaging in any other activities that are prohibited under the Act is not allowed.

Furthermore, Section 16 (1) of the Act defines the authority of the Particular Appeal Tribunal established under the Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunal) Act. This tribunal has jurisdiction over hearing and deciding appeals from courts established under legislations including:
a) The Recovery of Public Property (Particular Military Tribunals) Act
b) The Exchange Control (Anti-sabotage) Act
c) The Particular Tribunal (assorted discourtesies) Act.

The Counterfeit Currency (Particular Provisions) Act, along with its amendments, explores the legal powers of the Courts and examines whether the composition of the Tribunals is related to these conferred legal powers.

Upon closer examination of the Court's composition, it becomes apparent that specialized knowledge among its members was not taken into account. Most Tribunal members, whether currently serving or retired, were judicial officers. However, there were also nonprofessionals from backgrounds such as the Armed Forces and Nigerian police. It remains unclear if these individuals were appointed based on their specialized knowledge in areas covered by the Tribunals' legal power.The absence of specialization in Nigerian policy-oriented Courts, discussed here, suggests that little effort was made to ensure specialization. Consequently, this weakens the arguments supporting the use of specialized tribunals over regular courts

in Nigeria. However, we believe that if our courts were adequately equipped and staffed, reliance on such tribunals would significantly decrease. Overall, we have thoroughly analyzed five specific courts and their legal powers to understand the motivations behind their innovative actions. Upon examining these courts' composition, it became evident that expertise in their respective jurisdictions was not the primary criterion for selecting members. Therefore, there was a lack of specialization typically observed in policy-focused courts.