Francis Ogwo
As a way of checking the spread of the deadly Coronavirus, the Nigerian Judicial Council (NJC) is set to adopt a virtual court sitting which will see judgments taken without the crowd in the courts. This will also give judges opportunity of handling court proceedings at locations where they are restricted by the lockdown orders.
This is contained in a new set of guidelines released by NJC, which would have the head of court decide what cases to go online.
The guidelines banned physical court sittings during the COVID-19 period, except for cases that are urgent and time-bound and directs the heads of courts to determine the cases that fall within the category, and shall publish the list thereof, for the information of judicial officers, litigants, Counsel and members of the public.
Such list may be reviewed by the Head of Court from time to time as necessary and required.
It also stipulates that virtual court sittings also called remote courts sittings should be encouraged and promoted by the courts and Counsel; the courts should insist on such remote hearings for matters that do not require taking any evidence. All judgments, ruling and directions may be delivered and handed down by the courts in and through remote court sitting.
The guidelines went further to say that for cases that are urgent and require evidence, a physical courtroom may be permitted.
Owing to the uncertainty of the lifespan of the pandemic and how long the social distancing measures would be adopted, the guidelines said, “As the courts and Counsel become proficient in virtual court sitting arrangements, the courts may, on a trial-run basis, gradually experiment with taking witnesses and evidence, virtually.
“This is important, given the fact that no one can estimate with any degree of certainty how long the COVID-19 pall will hang over humanity or when exactly a therapeutic cure or vaccine may be found for the disease.”
The NJC further set out guidelines to determine the locations for the virtual court settings and decided that the judicial officer(s) and the court officials and security personnel shall, as a default arrangement, sit and be in the regular courtrooms for remote court sittings.
Except with the leave of court, only the judicial officer(s), the court officials, and security personnel shall be the ones in the courtroom for any virtual court sitting.
Save with the consent of the court or the prior written agreement of the parties, it is not permissible for any of the parties to a matter that is being heard virtually, to be in the courtroom with the judicial officer(s) during the virtual court sitting while the other party or parties to the same matter join the proceedings remotely.
Subject to the prior approval of each Head of Court, judicial officers may conduct virtual court sittings from their respective chambers. The further provision shall apply imparimateria, to all such virtual court sittings that are hosted in chambers.
The guidelines also stated that for judicial officers who are tied down to a location due to the restriction order and may need to deliver time bound judgments, away from their usual locations, they may liase with the court officials for a virtual hearing and where virtual hearing is not possible, a judicial officer that is marooned outside his station, may upon obtaining the fiat of his Head of Court, deliver the judgment or ruling of his court that is time bound or urgent in the courtroom of any of the Divisions of the Court closest to his location.
The provisions of this guideline in regard to the physical sittings of the courts shall apply in all respects to such sitting of the court for the delivery of the judgment or ruling.
Furthermore, the courts were directed to provide fast-speed, pervasive and reliable Internet connectivity, end-user Hardware/Devices (i.e. desktops, laptops, tablets, Collaborative Platform (e.g. MS365 [which incorporates Microsoft Teams], Zoom, Google Meetings, etc.) and smart phones for the location, in order to host online court sittings while the courts ensure their availability.
“In terms of the charges for installations, it stated that these require payments of subscription fees to the software manufacturers and subsequent installation of the softwares in the end-user hardware devices. Some of the software have provision for multiple or group user subscriptions.
“These may be cost-efficient for stand-alone judiciaries, Federal or State (e.g. the Supreme Court, each Division of the Court of Appeal, Divisions of the National Industrial Court or the Federal High Court, etc.),” the guidelines added.
The courts were also given rights over the virtual court sitting proceedings while engaging the services of trained court personnel to handle it.
One key aspect of the guidelines is that their Lordships must maintain 2 metre or 6 feet social and physical distance in the courtroom and also between the registrars.
It also stated that where there is a travel restriction on Justices of the appellate courts being marooned in various locations away from their stations (as in the present circumstance), the appellate courts may explore the possibility of constituting panels for the dispersed Justices to sit virtually from their respective locations, provided that the Justices have technically proficient personnel who can assist the Justices in coordinating and managing the collaborative platform, and the technical requirements of the Justices and the remote court sittings.
Finally, the guidelines said, “Heads of courts shall ensure that there is live streaming of all virtual court proceedings through a publicized Uniform Resource Locator (url or web address) of the courts on any other social media channel, so that members of the public can observe the proceedings,” the guidelines concluded.
