A legislative proposal by the House of Representatives to institute a five-year non-renewable tenure for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and other heads of courts has sparked criticism from legal professionals, who argue that the current system is efficient and fair.
The bill, sponsored by Manu Soro (representing Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency, Bauchi State), seeks to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution to limit the terms of the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges of the 36 states, and other judicial heads. Under the proposal, officials would serve a fixed five-year term and either return to their previous roles as judges or retire upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.
The bill’s explanatory memorandum states that the move is intended to enhance efficiency, motivate judicial officers, and prevent the prolonged tenure of heads of courts.
Legal professionals have pushed back against the proposal, questioning its necessity and potential consequences.
Bridget Edokwe, National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), dismissed the idea as unnecessary, stating, “The current practice of retirement upon reaching the mandatory retirement age works effectively and ensures stability. There is no need to change a flawless system.”
Marcellus Onah, a Lagos-based lawyer, warned that the move could politicize judicial appointments. He argued that a fixed term might prioritize political interests over professional merit, disadvantaging states that promote younger judges to the higher courts. “This would be a disservice to states that appoint young judges who grow to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court,” he said.
Malachy Ugwummadu, a human rights lawyer, also expressed concerns about the fixed term’s rigidity, cautioning that it could lead to complications if a head of court becomes incapacitated during their tenure. “If you fix the tenure at five years and the person becomes incapable due to health reasons, the judiciary will have to endure the situation because the law mandates the full term,” he explained.
Under the current framework, heads of courts serve until they either reach the statutory retirement age (70 years) or complete 35 years in service, whichever comes first. Lawyers argue this system provides sufficient flexibility while maintaining productivity.
Critics caution that a fixed term could inadvertently shortchange some states and disrupt the judiciary’s effectiveness. They suggest retaining the current structure, which is deemed more adaptable to the needs of the judiciary and the public.
The debate highlights concerns over the potential politicization of the judiciary and the risks associated with altering a well-functioning system. Legal professionals continue to advocate for maintaining the current retirement-based model, emphasizing its proven track record of ensuring stability and fairness in the judiciary.
