There have been criticism by lawyers and civil society organisations on the recent directive by President Muhammadu Buhari for the appointment of five new justices of the judiciary.
President Buhari had in June 9 directed the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad, to appoint the new justices in line with the provisions of Section 230 (2) (a) and (b) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999.
In the statement signed by the spokesman of the president, Garba Shehu, the president said the move is to pursue the Federal Government’s agenda of repositioning the “judiciary in general and Supreme Court in particular for greater efficiency with a view to reducing the backlog of appeals pending at the Supreme Court.”
But Access to Justice (A2Justice) has said that the directive by President Muhammadu Buhari for appointment of new Supreme Court justices (JSC) was a mockery of the judiciary.
The Convener of A2J, Joseph Otteh in a briefing over the weekend criticized the process, which saw the CJN accept the request asking Supreme Court Justices to nominate “suitable candidates for consideration for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
The Supreme Court has not had the full bench of 21 Justices as provided in the constitution since the transition to civil rule in 1999 in spite of calls for it to do so. But A2J questions why that has to be a presidential “request” that should trigger the Judiciary into filling longstanding vacancies at the Supreme Court.
He said the Judiciary gives the impression, inferably, that it has no mind of its own, and cannot control its own business or judge what is in its own best interest. Nigeria’s judicial branch is created as an independent arm of government, with powers and responsibility over the affairs of the Judiciary.
“The Constitution and the Nigerian people expect the Judiciary to exercise full autonomy over matters relating to the appointment, discipline and removal of judges without interference from other branches of government, just as the Judiciary does not interfere in appointments made by other arms of government.
“The Judiciary has not told the Presidency when, for example, to appoint cabinet Ministers since May 29, 2019 when this administration began another term. The Judiciary ought to march to the beat of its own drum not another’s. The move to fill-up all vacant Supreme Court positions, following from the President’s advice or direction, unfortunately casts the Judiciary as an institution that lacks real substance in the concept of its independence; as a lackey arm, sub-ordinate to the direction of the executive branch.
“Given the Presidency’s role in the sobering events leading to the removal of the past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen (rtd) and the instatement of a new (acting) one, the Nigerian Judiciary ought to maintain considerable distance from other branches of government, as part of its efforts at rebuilding its public image that has, for a long while now, remained below par,” he said.
“It has not done so in this case but is, rather, further hurting its public perception and sending an invidious, counter-productive message to Nigerian judges nationwide that the Judiciary should take cognizance of the body language of the executive, and hearken to its requests, wishes and demands.”
Speaking in the same vein, Hamid Ajibola Jimoh Esq said the directive was disrespectful of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers and ultra vires the constitutional powers of the president by virtue of Section 233 (2) of the Constitution 1999, especially considering the means the message was communicated.
“More so the CJN is not constitutionally subject to the control of the president even in the recommendation of justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, see Section 158 (1) of the Constitution,” he said.
The 2014 Revised Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria in Rule 6 provides the pathways to the appointment of justices including to the Supreme Court.
The Rule reads: “In carrying out the provisional shortlisting exercise, the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission/Committee shall take into consideration as much as possible (i) professional expertise and competence including in the case of appointment of judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and Justices of the Court of Appeal/Chief Judges/Legal Practitioners/academicians to the Supreme Court, the quality of judgments and performance and demonstration of judicial skills of the judge; and in the case of appointment from the bar, evidence of six contested cases in the last five years; (ii) sound knowledge of law (iii) seniority at the Bar and or Bench, (iv) Federal character or geographical spread and where necessary and possible, without compromising the independence of the judiciary or allowing politics to permeate or influence the appointment.”
