Godwin Tsa Abuja

The Supreme Court, yesterday, struck out the suits filed by Lagos and Ekiti governments challenging the validity and constitutionality of virtual court sitting procedures.

A seven-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour declared that virtual court sitting procedures are constitutional and dismissed the suits  for being speculative in nature without any valid cause of action.

The court took the decision after both states withdrew the suits filed against the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Assembly.

The apex court warned that any judge who refused to sit via virtual proceedings should be reported to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for disciplinary action.

Related News

Lagos State in a suit marked SC/CV/260/2020, asked the Supreme Court to determine whether having regard to Section 36(1), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),the use of technology by remote hearings of any kind, whether by Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, Skype or any other audio visual or video-conference platform by the Lagos State High Court or any other courts in Nigeria in aid of hearing and determination of cases, are constitutional.

Canvassing arguments for the state on Monday,  Attorney General, Moyosore Onigbanjo, told  the court that the suit raised a cause of  action which is the interpretation of the constitution as to whether the courts can accommodate virtual court proceedings.

He further argued that the National Assembly does not have the powers to regulate the practice and procedures of courts as such powers are only donated to state chief judges.

Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, who led the seven-man panel said: “Just let us wait for the National Assembly whether what they will come up with something against the practice direction issued by Chief Judges of the states and the National Judicial Council (NJC) on virtual sitting.”

Justice Vivour said it would be after the National Assembly had passed its pending bill seeking to include virtual sitting in the Constitution that anybody can challenge the constitutionality or otherwise of such an enactment and whether it violates the powers of heads of courts to regulate proceedings.