The House of Representatives’ recent proposal to introduce a five-year tenure for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and other heads of courts across the country has sparked significant debate within the legal community. Many legal professionals argue that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and could disrupt the stability of the judiciary.
Currently, heads of courts serve until they reach the constitutionally mandated retirement age or are otherwise removed from office. The proposed bill, introduced as part of ongoing constitutional amendments, seeks to alter this arrangement. Sponsored by Manu Soro, a lawmaker representing Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, the bill aims to introduce a fixed, non-renewable five-year tenure for judicial officers appointed as CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and other top judicial positions at both federal and state levels. Under this new system, once their tenure expires, they would either return to their previous roles as judges or retire if they have reached the age limit.
The stated objective of the bill is to improve efficiency and prevent prolonged tenures that could hinder judicial reforms. However, many legal practitioners believe this approach could have unintended consequences. The National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Bridget Edokwe, strongly opposed the proposal, describing the current system as effective and stable. She argued that there is no justification for changing a system that has been working well and that retirement based on age ensures continuity and experience in the judiciary.
Similarly, Lagos-based lawyer Marcellus Onah contended that the proposed amendment could introduce political interference in judicial appointments. He warned that a fixed tenure system might prioritize political considerations over merit-based appointments, potentially compromising the judiciary’s independence. Onah further highlighted that some CJNs have served only a few months before retirement, while others have had nearly a decade in office, depending on when they were appointed. Imposing a uniform tenure could unfairly disadvantage states that promote younger judges through the ranks, compared to others where older individuals are appointed at lower levels.
Human rights lawyer and public affairs commentator, Malachy Ugwummadu, raised concerns about the broader implications of the proposal. He pointed out that judicial officers already have clearly defined retirement criteria—either reaching 70 years of age or completing 35 years of service. According to him, altering this system could create problems, especially if a Chief Justice appointed under the new tenure system becomes unfit for office due to health reasons before completing the five-year term. He warned that unless the bill includes a provision for removing incapacitated justices, the judiciary could face significant challenges in handling cases where a serving CJN is unable to perform their duties but cannot be removed due to tenure restrictions.
Ugwummadu emphasized that the current system, which allows for retirement at 70 or after 35 years of service, strikes a better balance between stability and judicial efficiency. He noted that appointments to the judiciary are governed by statutory provisions, and any premature removal of a judicial officer before the end of their term could lead to legal disputes and financial liabilities for the government.
The debate over this proposed reform highlights broader concerns about judicial independence and governance in Nigeria. While proponents of the bill argue that fixed terms could prevent excessive tenure elongation and encourage fresh perspectives in the judiciary, critics insist that the existing system already ensures accountability and competence. As discussions continue, many legal experts believe that maintaining the current retirement structure is the best approach to preserving the integrity and efficiency of Nigeria’s judicial system.
No comments:
Post a Comment