The House of Representatives had 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 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, who represents the Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency of Bauchi State.
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.
According to its explanatory memorandum, the bill is geared towards enhancing service efficiency and officer motivation and addressing the overstay of heads of courts.
But, most lawyers, who spoke to reporters 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, Bridget Edokwe, clearly disagreed with the lawmakers’ argument, stressing that there is no need to change a flawless system.
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.
However, for Malachy Ugwummadu, a human rights lawyer and public affairs commentator, it is the question of motive. He noted that there is nothing wrong with the current position where the heads of the courts retire at the age of 70 or after completion of 35 years in service, pointing out the danger of changing the current position.
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 because of ill health or any other consideration, incapable of discharging the functions of his office, such a person shall leave.