By Hassanat Adebowale
The House of Representatives’ proposal to introduce a five-year term for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges of the 36 states, and other heads of courts has sparked significant opposition from lawyers who deem the move unnecessary.
Recently, a bill was introduced to establish a five-year tenure for the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, and other judicial leaders. Currently, these officials serve until they reach retirement age or are removed from office.
Sponsored by Manu Soro from Bauchi State, the bill is part of the constitution alteration bills being reviewed by the House Committee on Constitution Review. The legislation aims to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution to establish a non-renewable five-year term for appointed judicial officers, who would either return to their previous roles or retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.
Proponents argue that the change will enhance service efficiency and motivation among judicial officers. However, many lawyers disagree, claiming it will disrupt a functional system and disadvantage states appointing younger judges.
Bridget Edokwe, National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), stated, “The current system of retirement upon reaching the mandatory age ensures stability. There is no need to change a system that works well.”
Marcellus Onah, a Lagos-based lawyer, added, “Imposing a five-year term could shift appointments from professional merit to political considerations, undermining judicial integrity.”
Human rights lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu expressed concerns about the amendment’s potential to create issues if a judicial officer becomes incapacitated before completing their term. He warned, “A fixed five-year term could force the judiciary to endure an incapable leader due to health or other reasons.”
Most legal experts believe that the current system, which mandates retirement at 70 years or after 35 years of service, ensures productivity and should remain unchanged.
The debate continues as the legal community and lawmakers weigh the implications of the proposed tenure reform.
The House of Representatives’ proposal to introduce a five-year term for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges of the 36 states, and other heads of courts has sparked significant opposition from lawyers who deem the move unnecessary.
Recently, a bill was introduced to establish a five-year tenure for the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, and other judicial leaders. Currently, these officials serve until they reach retirement age or are removed from office.
Sponsored by Manu Soro from Bauchi State, the bill is part of the constitution alteration bills being reviewed by the House Committee on Constitution Review. The legislation aims to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution to establish a non-renewable five-year term for appointed judicial officers, who would either return to their previous roles or retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.
Proponents argue that the change will enhance service efficiency and motivation among judicial officers. However, many lawyers disagree, claiming it will disrupt a functional system and disadvantage states appointing younger judges.
Bridget Edokwe, National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), stated, “The current system of retirement upon reaching the mandatory age ensures stability. There is no need to change a system that works well.”
Marcellus Onah, a Lagos-based lawyer, added, “Imposing a five-year term could shift appointments from professional merit to political considerations, undermining judicial integrity.”
Human rights lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu expressed concerns about the amendment’s potential to create issues if a judicial officer becomes incapacitated before completing their term. He warned, “A fixed five-year term could force the judiciary to endure an incapable leader due to health or other reasons.”
Most legal experts believe that the current system, which mandates retirement at 70 years or after 35 years of service, ensures productivity and should remain unchanged.
The debate continues as the legal community and lawmakers weigh the implications of the proposed tenure reform.
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