Senior Lawyers Oppose The Five-year Term For The Chief Justice Of Nigeria And Heads Of Court.

The National Assembly seems dissatisfied with the judiciary’s longstanding practice of granting tenure to heads of all types of superior courts in the country. Traditionally, court leaders, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Appeal Court, serve until they reach retirement age.

Judicial officers who join the bench early and rise to lead a court can remain in their positions indefinitely until retirement, provided they are not promoted to a higher court. They may, however, be removed from their roles due to misconduct. This includes various heads of courts, such as the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and state Chief Judges.

In contrast, leaders of the executive and legislative branches have fixed four-year terms as outlined by the 1999 Constitution, with removal only possible for misconduct.

The National Assembly is considering constitutional amendments to implement a maximum five-year tenure for heads of courts, arguing that this change would improve efficiency and motivation among judicial officers while mitigating the issues associated with prolonged tenures.

Additionally, lawmakers are challenging Section 230 of the 1999 Constitution, which establishes a single Supreme Court for the entire country without divisions. Legislative discussions have already commenced in the lower chambers of the National Assembly to amend the Constitution, spurred by two bills introduced by Mansur Manu Soro, a representative from the Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency.

The lawmakers’ proposals to amend the constitution have ignited significant debate among stakeholders, especially within the legal community. Prominent lawyers, including former Attorney-General of Abia State Prof. Awa Kalu, former Imo State House of Assembly member Chief Mike Ahamba, constitutional law expert Prof. Itse Sagay, and respected senior advocate Mallam Yusuf Ali, expressed surprise that such bills were introduced, indicating that current lawmakers may lack a solid understanding of judicial matters.

These senior lawyers criticized the proposals, evaluating them as lacking merit. In particular, they advised the legislature to maintain the current structure of the judiciary to avoid creating unnecessary complications for its operations.

Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, expressed his opposition to imposing term limits on judicial officers, arguing that judicial positions differ fundamentally from other roles that typically have time constraints. He pointed out that in some states, individuals who serve as directors for eight years must transition to another position, a practice he believes is inappropriate for the judiciary.

Kalu emphasized that judicial office, particularly for roles like Chief Judge or Chief Justice of Nigeria, should not follow such limitations. He noted that if a chief judge rises through the ranks early in their career, their peers would be affected, suggesting that term limits would create more problems than solutions in the judicial system.

Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, questioned the logic of making a chief judge revert to the status of the youngest judge after a five-year term, arguing that such a practice undermines the judiciary’s structure. He emphasized the virtue of patience, suggesting that individuals should remain in their positions until their superiors retire rather than forcing arbitrary changes.

Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, also criticized the proposal, asserting that it reflects an attempt to politicize the judiciary. He stressed that while the executive and legislature are filled with politicians, the judiciary operates independently, and tenure should not be dictated by political considerations. Ahamba argued that experience enhances judicial performance, citing U.S. Supreme Court justices who continue to serve at advanced ages, urging lawmakers to leave the judiciary uninfluenced by electoral politics.

Yusuf Ali, SAN, added that maintaining the status quo in judicial tenure has not caused problems, cautioning against unwarranted changes that could lead to new issues. He compared the situation to a former president being demoted to a ministerial role, suggesting that such changes could be inappropriate and disruptive.

Prof. Sagay, SAN, voiced his support for the current judicial system, arguing that it is functioning effectively and should not be changed merely for the sake of change. He criticized the proposal to rotate judicial leadership, suggesting it indirectly encourages heads of court to retire early rather than allowing them to serve their full terms.

Sagay expressed concern about the practicality of former heads of court reverting to ordinary judge status, likening the proposal to a mere “turn-by-turn” approach that prioritizes personal advancement over judicial duties. He argued that serving longer in such positions can enhance a judge’s effectiveness and that judges should retire at the age of 70, regardless of their prior titles.

In response to the proposal to decentralize the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Prof. Kalu, SAN, questioned the benefits of splitting the court into multiple zones, pointing out that the United States, which is larger than Nigeria, maintains a single Supreme Court. He argued that having one Supreme Court promotes consistency and accuracy in judgments.

Prof. Kalu highlighted inconsistencies within the Court of Appeal, where judgments can differ significantly across its regional divisions, suggesting that this complicates the notion of a unified judicial system. He expressed his preference for maintaining a single Supreme Court that is not divided into regional zones, emphasizing that it should serve as the singular highest court for the entire nation rather than being designated by geographical regions.

Kalu questioned the logistics of organizing multiple zones, pointing out that determining when each zone could convene would pose challenges, particularly in staffing cases with the required seven justices. He argued against splitting the Supreme Court, noting its historical continuity since Nigeria’s independence in 1960. He called for better streamlining of operations, potentially through technology, rather than decentralizing the court.

Chief Ahamba echoed Kalu’s sentiment, questioning the rationale behind having a “Supreme Court” divided into multiple sections. He expressed skepticism about the competence of the assembly to amend the constitution, suggesting they can only modify some of its provisions. Overall, both emphasized that the Supreme Court should remain a unified entity.

The speaker criticized the current legislative practice of using the term “amendment” interchangeably with “alteration,” pointing out that they have different meanings. An amendment removes or replaces existing text, while an alteration modifies it without erasing it. He expressed concern that such practices could lead to confusion among legal professionals and hinder the writing of scholarly works on the constitution, as frequent changes could disrupt the understanding of constitutional sections.

The speaker emphasized the importance of protecting the judiciary from fluctuations in lawmaking, fearing that interference could lead to a breakdown in legal order and potentially result in anarchy. He specifically addressed issues in Imo State, where a lack of a chief judge has stalled case assignments, arguing that the law mandates that the most senior judge should automatically assume the chief judgeship during such vacancies.

Ali, SAN, supported this perspective, noting that globally recognized judicial systems, including those in the U.S. and the U.K., maintain a singular structure for their Supreme Courts. He questioned the rationale behind decentralizing the Supreme Court in Nigeria, likening it to transforming it into a Court of Appeal. Both speakers stressed the need for stability in the judiciary to ensure its integrity and effectiveness.

The speaker emphasized that a country’s Supreme Court should function as a unified policy court, free from geopolitical influences, as it is meant to serve all citizens impartially. He suggested limiting the types of cases that can reach the Supreme Court to prevent it from becoming overloaded, arguing that it should avoid becoming involved in politically driven issues that could complicate the legal landscape.

He firmly opposed the idea of having a Supreme Court that operates with various divisions, likening it to the structure of a Court of Appeal, which has many segments. He urged those who value the rule of law to oppose such proposals.

In a related comment, Prof. Sagay, SAN, also expressed disapproval of divisional structures within the Supreme Court, but proposed a compromise where justices could temporarily work in different zones before returning to Abuja, as was done in the 1950s and early 1960s.

The speaker recalled a previous practice where Supreme Court justices traveled across the country to address cases in various regions while the court was physically based in Lagos. Justices would spend up to six months in a particular area, effectively reducing the backlog of cases and preventing the need for those cases to be transferred to Lagos.

He argued that this approach could alleviate congestion in the court system and make it easier for individuals filing cases, as they would be closer to where appeals are processed. While he acknowledged that this method requires careful organization, he advocated for this past practice over creating formal court divisions, suggesting that it had proven to be effective in the past.