Prohibition of Stay of Proceedings in Criminal Litigations under ACJA/EFCC Acts and Speedy Dispensation of Justice: Olisah Metuh V FRN (2017) 5–7 MJSC 83
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Considering the reality that criminal proceedings suffer unwarranted delay due to spatial of antics habitually utilized by litigants to delay proceedings, this paper explores the judgment of the Supreme Court in Methu v FRN to determine whether, or not, exclusion of stay of proceedings is constitutional. The authors employed mainly doctrinal method, thus library based. It is established that antics and technicalities often employ by litigants/counsel in corruption cases constitute impediment to speedy trial of indicted individual in courts. The judgment under review validates the constitutionality of proscription of stay of proceedings and remedied the unwholesome attitude of litigants/counsel to deliberately delay/frustrate criminal proceedings. Similarly, the risk of denying the state of its synergy to fight corruption vide delay in securing expeditious hearing and trial of cases is extinguished and constitutional right of the accused, the victim of crime and the state to fair hearing within reasonable time reaffirmed. It is concluded that the innovative insertion of prohibition on stay of proceedings in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act ( ACJA ) and Economic and Financial Crime Commission ( EFCC ) Act mechanisms put in place to check delay in prosecuting crime of corruption, and therefore, does not infringe on the fundamental right of an accused person to fair hearing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".