A Federal High Court in Umuahia halted Abia State’s judicial appointment process. The court ruled against proceeding with judge selections amid pending litigation.
The court reached its decision during a session led by Justice S.B. Onu. Petitioners filed suit against the Abia State Judicial Service Commission. They argued that the selection process violates due process. They claimed the commission acted improperly by shortlisting candidates during active litigation.
Two petitioners, Uzoamaka Uche-Ikonne and Victoria Okey-Nwokeukwu, led the challenge. They argued that the court must decide on suit FHC/UM/CS/82/2024 before any further appointment steps occur. The petitioners asserted that the shortlisting of candidates in a letter dated March 12, 2025, breached judicial protocols and constitutional mandates.
They warned that any further steps taken during the litigation would prompt the court to impose sanctions for contempt. They emphasized that the National Judicial Council has already suspended the appointment process. The petitioners cited cases such as Abiodun vs. CJ Kwara State and INEC vs. Youth Party to support their claim.
Legal practitioners in Abia express growing frustration. Lawyers note that delays in appointing judges hinder justice delivery. They also worry that a shortage of judges worsens the lengthy detention of suspects in Abia prisons. Some attribute the problem to an extended retirement age for judges.
The court’s decision underlines the importance of adhering to legal processes. The ruling aims to prevent self-help measures that undermine constitutional procedures. Abia residents and legal experts now await further developments.
The court ordered all parties to refrain from further actions until it resolves pending disputes. The judge warned that any violations may result in contempt proceedings. The ruling reinforces that no appointment can proceed while a suit remains unresolved in the court.
The court emphasized its duty to uphold the rule of law and ensure judicial integrity in Abia. The decision signals a commitment to proper legal process amid a contentious appointment process. The legal community remains watchful as the case develops, anticipating a fair resolution that restores order in the state judiciary.
