The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, has questioned the constitutional authority of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to dictate the candidate the state should nominate for appointment as its substantive Chief Judge.
Obinatu maintained that the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has an independent constitutional responsibility to assess and submit qualified candidates, insisting that the NJC cannot dictate, control or replace the commission’s choice with its preferred nominee.
He made the position known in a statement issued on Friday, following a directive by the NJC to the Imo State Judicial Service Commission at its 112th meeting held on November 3.
The directive concerned the process of appointing a substantive Chief Judge for Imo State.
The Attorney-General argued that although the NJC has the constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the governor, that power does not extend to determining whom the state commission must nominate.
“The NJC’s constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the governor does not confer on it the additional power to determine or dictate the candidate the State Judicial Service Commission must submit to it,” he said.
Citing Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Obinatu said the State Judicial Service Commission was protected from external interference in the exercise of its constitutional responsibilities.
“The State Judicial Service Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person in exercising its constitutionally assigned powers.
“This provision establishes a clear constitutional safeguard against external interference in the commission’s responsibilities and cannot be overridden by the NJC through administrative directives or procedural guidelines,” he stated.
He further argued that the NJC could not rely on its national institutional status to exercise control over the state commission.
“The NJC cannot invoke its national institutional status or its recommendation powers to exercise control over the Imo State JSC in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution,” he added.
Attorney-General explains constitutional provisions
Obinatu also referenced Section 271(1) and relevant provisions of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which define the respective responsibilities of the State Judicial Service Commission, the NJC and the governor in appointing a substantive Chief Judge.
He explained that Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable candidates for appointment as Chief Judge.
Similarly, Paragraph 21(c) of Part I empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate to the governor from among the persons submitted by the state commission.
Section 271(1), he noted, provides that the appointment is made by the governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.
According to him, the provisions establish distinct responsibilities for the three institutions involved in the appointment process.
“The State JSC identifies and advises on suitable candidates, the NJC considers the submitted names and makes its recommendation to the Governor, while the Governor exercises the appointing authority subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly,” he said.
On the NJC’s Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers, the Attorney-General acknowledged the council’s authority to establish procedures for judicial appointments.
However, he maintained that such guidelines must remain within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
“Such guidelines cannot confer powers beyond those granted by the Constitution or be used to compromise the independent functions of the State JSC,” he said.
Cites previous court Judgments
To support his position, Obinatu referenced several court decisions, including Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (2012), Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission & Anor. v. Salisu & Ors. (2019) and Bamisile v. National Judicial Council & Ors. (2012).
Other cases cited were FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022), NJC & Ors. v. Senlong & Ors. (2010) and Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors. (2024).
He said the judicial decisions reinforced the principle that constitutional institutions must exercise their powers within the limits established by law.
The commissioner stressed that the disagreement was not about institutional superiority but the need for the NJC and the state commission to respect their respective constitutional responsibilities.
“The issue is not a contest for institutional superiority between the NJC and the State JSC, but the need for each institution to respect the constitutional boundaries of its authority,” he said.
Obinatu urged that the ongoing appointment process be conducted in strict compliance with the Constitution, insisting that the NJC’s recommendation powers should not be interpreted as authority to control the independent selection process of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com
