Kano orders crackdown on same-sex marriage promoters

The Group Chief Executive Officer, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mr. Mele Kyari, has commended the military’s efforts in combating…

The Federal Government has vowed to crack down on substandard school building construction across the country, urging stakeholders including the…

The move by the House of Representatives to allot five-year tenure to the office of the Chief Justice of the Federation, CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the 36 states of the federation and other heads of courts in Nigeria has drawn the ire of lawyers, who had argued that
Lawyers tackle NASS over proposed 5-year term for CJN, others

The move by the House of Representatives to allot five-year tenure to the office of the Chief Justice of the Federation, CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the 36 states of the federation and other heads of courts in Nigeria has drawn the ire of lawyers, who had argued that the move is unnecessary.

Recall that the House of Representatives recently introduced a bill seeking five-year tenure for the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN,, President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judges in the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Grand Khadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal and President of Customary Court of Appeal.

This is against the current practice, where heads of courts hold offices until they attain the retirement age or they are removed from office.

The proposed legislation, which is part of the constitution alteration bills being considered by the House Committee on Constitution Review, was sponsored by Manu Soro, representing Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi State.

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,” the bill is specifically seeking the alteration of Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to include a new subsection.

The proposed subsection stipulates 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 State, Grand Khadi of Sharia Court of Appeal or President of Customary Court of Appeal of a State, shall serve for a five-year non-renewable term and return to their previous role as judges or shall retire if retirement age is attained, whichever comes first.

The bill, according to its explanatory memorandum, is geared towards enhancing service efficiency and motivation of officers, and to address overstay of heads of courts.

But, most lawyers, who spoke to DAILY POST, think otherwise. They do not agree that it would motivate officers and enhance efficiency; rather their argument is that it would shortchange some states, particularly those that send young judges to the apex court.

The National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mrs Bridget Edokwe, clearly disagreed with the lawmakers’ argument, stressing that there is no need changing a flawless system.

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.”

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 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.

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 said.

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.

“Thirsty five years in service or 70 years of age, whichever comes first, because those are productive years.”

Lawyers tackle NASS over proposed 5-year term for CJN, others