Justice

It is often said and truly so that justice delayed is justice denied. The desire of every litigant when approaching the court to seek redress is that his/her cause will be heard and determined expeditiously. However, owing to several factors ranging from human to institutional, cases filed in court were heard and determined longer than expected. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) is a specialised court which has exclusive original civil jurisdiction over labour and ancillary matters which by their nature, have to be adjudicated expeditiously. To achieve this aim, the NICN Civil Procedure Rules, 2017 has introduced the practice of trial on records. This paper while highlighting the developmental sojourn of the NICN, examines the court’s practice of ‘trial on record’ by foregrounding its merits and demerits, the challenges facing the procedure and makes recommendations towards overcoming same.

This article through desk-based methodology reviews the Court of Appeal decision in Francis Johnson &n Anor. v. Comrade Emma Eze & Anor. wherein the Court held that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has a nationwide territorial jurisdiction hence, the provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (the SCPA) requiring endorsement of originating process issued in one state but to be served in another is inapplicable to processes filed at the NICN. This article while taking a historical excursion into the jurisdictional evolution of the NICN highlights the impact of the decision on the mandate and jurisdiction of the NICN as a specialized court. It argues that the decision has insulated the NICN from the shackles of technicality which is capable of arising if the NICN had been made amenable to the provision of section 97, 98 and 99 of the SCPA. It further contends that the decision is a welcomed development and same should be followed in subsequent cases in order to protect the NICN from technicalities with its concomitant adverse effects.

Over the years, Nigerians have suffered various forms of human rights abuses from security agencies particularly from personnel of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). There have been agitations of various degrees for the government to address the menace which did not produce meaningful result thereby exacerbating the plight of the youths who have been the prime victims. In October, 2020 Nigerian youths took to the streets to protest against unaddressed human rights violations by security agencies, demanding the disbandment of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) unit of the NPF (EndSARS). On the 20th of October, 2020, there were allegations of mass shootings of armless protesters by Nigerian Army officers at Lekki Tollgate. Sequel to this, the Federal Government (FG) was urged to set up inquiry into the EndSARS violence. However, there has been the contention as to who between the FG and States, is competent to set up a Panel of Inquiry (PI) into the EndSARS protest. Also, what is the utility of commission of inquiry in addressing the debacle? This paper through doctrinal methodology, interrogates these issues. It discusses factors that should be considered in setting up the PIs; militate against the effective implementation of the recommendation (s) of the Inquiries. It argues that; though under the Tribunal of Inquiry Act, 1966, States are the competent authority to set up PI, there are laws enabling the FG to set up inquiry on the issue hence, attention should be focused on how inquiry can be used to address the quagmire rather competence. The paper makes vital recommendations on how to mitigate the challenges that may confront the effectiveness of the inquiry as well as implementation of the reports