The recent decision by the House of Representatives to establish a five-year term for the positions of Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges of the 36 states, and other judicial leaders in Nigeria has provoked significant criticism from legal professionals, who contend that such a measure is unwarranted.
Henzodaily understands that the House of Representatives had put forward a bill proposing a five-year tenure for the CJN, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, the President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judges in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal, and the President of the Customary Court of Appeal.
This proposal contrasts with the existing system, where heads of courts serve until they reach retirement age or are otherwise removed from their positions.
The proposed legislation, which forms part of the constitutional amendment bills currently under review by the House Committee on Constitution Review, was introduced by Manu Soro, who represents the Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency in Bauchi State.
Entitled “A bill for an act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to provide for the tenured appointment of heads of courts at both the Federal and State judiciary,” the bill aims to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to incorporate a new subsection.
This new subsection specifies that any judicial officer appointed as Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Chief Judge of a State, Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal, or President of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State shall serve a non-renewable term of five years and subsequently return to their prior judicial roles or retire upon reaching the retirement age, whichever occurs first.
The legislation, as outlined in its explanatory memorandum, aims to improve service efficiency and the motivation of judicial officers, while also addressing the issue of prolonged tenures of court heads.
However, most attorneys who spoke with reporters on the development hold a differing opinion.
They contend that the bill will not serve to motivate officers or enhance efficiency; instead, they argue that it may disadvantage certain states, particularly those that appoint younger judges to the Supreme Court.
No Justification For Altering The Existing System
The National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Bridget Edokwe, firmly opposed the lawmakers’ rationale, emphasizing that there is no justification for altering a system that is already functioning effectively.
“I do not support the proposed five-year tenure limitation for heads of courts, such as the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the President of the Court of Appeal.
“The current practice of retirement upon reaching the mandatory retirement age works effectively well and ensures stability. There is no need to change a system that is not flawed,” she told Daily Post.
Also, in his submission, a Lagos-based lawyer, Marcellus Onah, thinks what the lawmakers are proposing is unnecessary because, according to him, if that is allowed to happen, then it would no longer be appointment based on professional merit but political ‘apportionment,’ to serve the interest of the political class.
“There is an already fixed age of retirement for justices of superior courts by the Constitution. Making it a five-year term will make it more of a political apportionment than an appointment based on professional competence and years of service as a career civil servant.
“Some Supreme Court justices served for only six months as Chief Justice of Nigeria and retired based on attainment of retirement age, while some spent almost a decade before retiring.
“It will be a great disservice to states that appoint young men as judges to grow to Appeal Courts and Supreme Court as against some states like Enugu, where old women and old men of 50 and above are being appointed judges when their call mates in other areas are already at appeal courts.
“My position is that the Chief Justice of Nigeria and President of the Court of Appeal should be allowed to retire when each of them attains the 70 years retirement age, whether the person has stayed five years or not,” he submitted.
However, for Malachy Ugwummadu, a human rights lawyer and public affairs commentator, it goes to the question of motive.
He said: “These are career judicial officers, and by their appointment and general public service rule, including the constitution, they have a term limit beyond which they can no longer stay and that will be determined by the number of years of service or attainment of 70 years of age.
“So, when you now attain the age of 70 years, it is immaterial whether you have served for 35 years or not.”
He noted that there is nothing wrong with the current position where the heads of the courts retire at the attainment of 70 years of age or completion of 35 years in service, pointing out the danger in changing the current position.
“So, when you put a fixed period of five years, the danger is that if you have a Supreme Court justice, who is appointed as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, for instance, and he is now, by reason of this new amendment, expected to stay for five years, where he attains the age of 70 and becomes completely senile by reason of health or whatever, there is nothing you can do about it other than to continue to endure him because you have now amended the law to say he cannot leave until after five years of his appointment,” he cautioned.
To avoid such a dilemma, he said: “The only caveat that can be put there is where you now put a proviso that where such a person becomes, either by reason of ill health or any other consideration, incapable of discharging the functions of his office, such a person shall leave.
“Otherwise, these are appointments with statutory flavours, and once the appointment draws from the express provisions of the statute or the constitution, there is nothing you can do about it. In short, if you relieve them of their jobs before the time, you will incur a huge judicial action.
“So, I will think that the way it is now is better. Except there are other reasons beyond the certainty of tenure of which using the proposal for a fixed term of five years is made, then it should be left the way it is.
“Thirty-five years in service or 70 years of age, whichever comes first, because those are productive years.”