It is not even helpful to the wheel of judicial progress in Nigeria. I know people would come with the argument that acting is like substantive, but it is not. It is not in the sense that, as it is, whosoever that is in acting capacity knows he has limitations and that limitation can affect dispensation of justice. Let me say this, in as much as I know for sure that the acting CJ must be in some dilemma, we have to be sincere about that. He may be wishing that he should be confirmed and the delay would tell in the way he carries his business every day, particularly when the constitution has already stipulated the manner in which he should be appointed. Because of the importance of that office, you find out that all the three arms of government have something to do with it. The National Judicial Council would nominate a person to the President who would send the name to the National Assembly for confirmation; the President representing the executive, the NJC representing the judiciary and the Senate representing the legislature. All these processes have to be complied with. As it is, the process has yet to be completed and we need to be so serious and we need to raise this. This is what must be done, this is what our constitution stipulates. As a lawyer, I am not pleased with what is going on and I believe every good citizen should be worried; the situation is worrisome. As it is today, we have a Senate President who is the head of the legislature who is not in acting capacity, the President is not in acting capacity, but unfortunately we are having a Chief Justice of Nigeria in acting capacity.
Mr. Johnbull Somina, (A human rights lawyer)
The delay in appointing the substantive Chief Justice of Nigeria is not just inimical to judicial reforms but also a threat to the due process of law. The reason is this: what kind of reforms will an acting CJN initiate when he knows that his tenure is for three months or at best an additional three months?
At that point, he knows that if another person is appointed in six months’ time, the person might sweep away the several reforms that he has carried out. So, at this point, our judicial sector is just in a state of anomie; it is just in motion, no movement.
Like now, there are things such as visiting of judges, issue of recruitment processes, all these things cannot be commenced except there is a substantive CJN.
My position is that the President, if he truly wants to build our judiciary, especially now that he is trying to intervene in the Gambia political debacle, he should please resolve the issues that the judiciary faces in Nigeria by immediately confirming the appointment of the acting CJN.
This is about the first time in our democratic dispensation where there is an acting Chief Justice for more than a month. The party that truly suffers is the practitioners — those who utilise the judicial system. This is so because, every CJN comes with a blueprint to either build upon the legacies or modify upon what the former one has done.
We believe that the present CJN will have a fairly long period of time, so, we are of the view that if he starts now, by the time he is in his second or third year, those reforms would have been fully entrenched but unfortunately, the man is not sure and by February, his term would have lapsed. He can only be reappointed for a further term of three months and thereafter, somebody else becomes an acting CJN. So, would we be going through this merry-go-round setting? It is quite unfortunate, I must submit.
Auwual Musa (Executive Director, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre)
Well, in terms of helping legal reforms, I don’t think such delays will be helpful. My reason is simple. I think someone who is appointed on a substantive basis is in a better position to take steps towards improving upon what he met on ground without the fear of stepping on toes. If he is acting, he is likely to be more on the lookout for areas which could affect his chances of getting confirmed. This, to my mind, will affect reforms he may want to make to improve the overall system. Another thing is what does our law say? Does it give room for an acting CJN? If it does, for how long can a person so appointed act? These are issues I think we can also look at in the interest of the whole system.
Mr. Stanley Imhanruor (A legal practitioner)
There is nothing stopping the current acting Chief Justice of Nigeria from exercising all the powers conferred on a substantive CJN by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pending when his name is forwarded to the National Assembly by Mr. President for confirmation.
Accordingly, all actions or decisions that may be taken by the acting CJN are legal and cannot be invalidated by any authority on the premise that such actions or decisions were taken by the CJN in acting capacity. To that extent, the absence of a substantive CJN cannot be said in all honesty to have adverse effect on the administration of justice in Nigeria as Section 231(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers any person so appointed in acting capacity as CJN to perform all the functions of a substantive CJN.
Dr. Kayode Adam (Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin)
I do not think it is helpful to the judicial reform. I do not subscribe to the idea that we continue to have an acting Chief Justice of Nigeria because a substantive chief judge will be in a position to take certain decisions that will move the judiciary forward. But once there is no substantive CJN, whoever that is occupying that seat in acting capacity may not be bold enough to take some far reaching decisions.
Whoever is occupying such an exalted position in acting capacity may not be bold enough to take far reaching decisions which may adversely affect his colleagues at the bench. And so, whatever judicial reforms that needs to be made which may be radical, the person who is in acting capacity may not be in a position to take it.
When you are looking at law, there is a provision in the constitution that for the office of the CJN, whoever is occupying that position will have to occupy it for three months and after three months, that person may not be able to occupy that position except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council. And so the person, who is in that opposition should be confirmed unless it is established that the person is involved in corrupt practices and so it will not be right to confirm such a person. If there is an allegation of corruption against that person, it may not be good enough for such a person to be confirmed because his confirmation will affect the fight against corruption. Where there is no clear corruption allegation against such a person, I think it is fair enough that, that person be confirmed to advance the war against corruption.
My advice to the federal government is that the acting CJN has been there for some months and I believe that he has what it takes to occupy that seat and that he can carry on with the demands of that exalted position. So he should be confirmed.
END
Be the first to comment