Bar Elders Reject Proposed Five-Year Tenure For CJN
A bill before the National Assembly proposing a five-year tenure for heads of courts in Nigeria has sparked widespread debate among legal practitioners, with senior lawyers and bar elders overwhelmingly opposing the initiative.
The proposed legislation, sponsored by Manu Soro (Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency, Bauchi State), seeks to amend the 1999 Constitution to introduce a fixed, non-renewable five-year term for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges of the Federal and State High Courts, and other top judicial officers.
Currently, these positions are held until the mandatory retirement age unless an incumbent resigns, becomes incapacitated, or is removed for gross misconduct. The bill aims to enhance judicial efficiency and prevent extended tenures but has been met with strong resistance from senior members of the legal profession.
Former Abia State Attorney-General, Prof. Awa Kalu (SAN), dismissed the bill as impractical, arguing that judicial leadership differs from the executive and legislative arms of government, where term limits apply.
“Judicial office is not one where you impose term limits. A Chief Judge who serves five years and returns to a junior role creates confusion in the system,” he stated.
Similarly, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) criticized the proposal, asserting that it reflects a misunderstanding of judicial operations.
“The judiciary should not be treated as a political institution. The alternative to an independent judiciary is anarchy, which is a dangerous path,” he warned.
Mallam Yusuf Ali (SAN) and Prof. Itsey Sagay (SAN) echoed concerns that the bill could destabilize the judiciary, with Sagay describing it as a “turn-by-turn” approach that prioritizes rotation over competence.
The bill also proposes the establishment of Supreme Court divisions in different geopolitical zones to ease access to justice. However, critics argue that a fragmented Supreme Court could lead to inconsistent rulings.
“We already have varying judgments from different Appeal Court divisions. Multiplying Supreme Court locations could worsen inconsistencies,” Kalu added.
While some legal experts support reforms to improve efficiency, others insist that the existing system—where judicial heads serve until retirement—is effective.
Former Ikeja Bar Chairman, Dave Ajetomobi, suggested a compromise, proposing a seven-year tenure for the CJN but agreeing to the five-year term for state and federal Chief Judges.
However, the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) National Publicity Secretary, Bridget Edokwe, firmly opposed the bill, stating, “The current retirement system ensures stability. There’s no need to change what isn’t broken.”
Some proponents argue that fixed tenures could curb corruption, but legal practitioner Ugochukwu Osuagwu suggested harsher penalties—such as the death penalty for corrupt judges—would be more effective.
With the National Assembly targeting December 2025 for constitutional review completion, the fate of the controversial bill remains uncertain. However, opposition from senior legal professionals signals an uphill battle for its passage.
