Connect with us

News

Lawyers oppose Reps proposal for five-year tenure for CJN, other heads of courts

Published

on

Lawyers
Spread The News

 

 

The House of Representatives’ proposal to institute a five-year non-renewable tenure for Nigeria’s Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN) and other heads of courts has sparked widespread criticism among legal experts. Many argue that the current system, which allows heads of courts to serve until retirement age, is more effective and ensures judicial stability.

The bill, 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 Federal and State Levels,” is one of several constitutional amendment proposals under review.

Sponsored by Manu Soro, representing the Darazo/Ganjuwa constituency of Bauchi State, the bill seeks to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution to stipulate a fixed five-year term for heads of courts.

READ ALSO: Body of Benchers to call 9,000 lawyers to bar in 2025

If passed, the bill would impact the tenure of the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judges of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Grand Khadi of Sharia Courts of Appeal, and Presidents of Customary Courts of Appeal.

After serving their five-year tenure, these officials would either return to their previous judicial roles or retire, depending on their age.

The proposed legislation claims to enhance efficiency and motivation among judicial officers while addressing concerns over prolonged tenures.

Many legal professionals have criticized the bill as unnecessary and potentially detrimental. Mrs. Bridget Edokwe, National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), dismissed the proposal, stating, “The current practice of retirement upon reaching the mandatory age works effectively well. It ensures stability and fairness, and there is no need to change a system that is not flawed.”

READ ALSO: Lawyers demand immediate halt to Police plan on third-party vehicle insurance enforcement

Similarly, Marcellus Onah, a Lagos-based lawyer, expressed concerns that the move could politicize judicial appointments, favoring political interests over merit. “If implemented, this bill may shift appointments from being based on professional competence to serving the interests of the political class,” he argued.

Advertisement

Critics also highlight potential disparities between states under the proposed system. Onah noted that states that promote younger judges to higher courts would suffer if the five-year tenure model is adopted.

“States appointing younger judges would face disadvantages compared to others where older judges dominate the system,” he added.

Malachy Ugwummadu, a human rights lawyer, pointed out practical challenges, including scenarios where aging justices might remain in office despite health issues.

“If a Chief Justice becomes incapacitated during the five-year tenure, the system would be forced to endure the inefficiency unless specific provisions are added for early removal,” he cautioned.

Ugwummadu argued that the current retirement structure, based on either 35 years of service or reaching the age of 70, is more logical and sustainable. He warned against unintended consequences, such as judicial stagnation or legal battles arising from premature dismissals.

The proposed legislation has sparked a heated debate about judicial reform in Nigeria. While proponents argue it would foster efficiency, critics believe it risks undermining the judiciary’s independence and fairness.

As the bill moves forward in the legislative process, legal experts and stakeholders urge caution, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the judiciary’s credibility and ensuring that any reforms align with Nigeria’s constitutional framework.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending