Lawyers have taken issue with the House of Representatives’ decision to give the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the 36 states in the federation, and other heads of Nigerian courts five-year terms. They have claimed that the decision is needless.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, the President of the National Industrial Court, the Chief Judges of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Grand Khadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal, and the President of the Customary Court of Appeal are all seeking five-year terms, according to a bill recently introduced by the House of Representatives.
This goes against the established norm, which states that judges remain in office until they reach retirement age or are removed.
Manu Soro, who represents the Darazo/Ganjuwa federal district of Bauchi State, sponsored the proposed legislation, which is one of the constitution amendment measures under consideration by the House Committee on Constitution Review.
The bill, which is titled “A bill for an act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to provide for tenured appointment of heads of courts at both the Federal and State judiciary,” aims to add a new subsection to Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
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 State, Grand Khadi of Sharia Court of Appeal, or President of a State’s Customary Court of Appeal must serve a five-year non-renewable term and either return to their previous position as judges or retire if they reach retirement age, whichever comes first, according to the proposed subsection.
According to its explanatory memorandum, the law aims to address the overstay of court heads and improve officer motivation and service efficiency.
However, the majority of attorneys who spoke with reporters have a different view. They contend that it would undervalue some states, especially those that send young judges to the highest court, and disagree that it would inspire officers and increase efficiency.
Mrs. Bridget Edokwe, the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), made it apparent that she did not agree with the lawmakers’ position, emphasizing that a perfect system does not need to be altered.
She said: “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.”
Additionally, Marcellus Onah, a lawyer from Lagos, argues in his submission that the lawmakers’ proposal is unnecessary because, if it were to be approved, appointments would no longer be made on the basis of professional merit but rather on political “apportionment” in order to further the interests of 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 political apportionment than appointment based on professional competence and years of service as 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.
But for public affairs analyst and human rights attorney Malachy Ugwummadu, it comes down to 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 said.
While pointing out the risks of altering the current system, he stated that there is nothing wrong with the current arrangement, which calls for the heads of the courts to retire when they reach the age of 70 or have served for 35 years.
“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.
“Thirsty five years in service or 70 years of age, whichever comes first, because those are productive years.”
