A bill seeking to amend the process of removing the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and other heads of Nigerian courts by requiring the input of the National Judicial Council (NJC) has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives.
The proposed legislation is sponsored by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas.
Edo lawmaker, Marcus Onobun, while leading the debate on the bill, explained that it seeks to amend Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Nigerian Constitution.
The amendment, according to him, would require the National Judicial Council (NJC) to first investigate allegations against the heads of Nigerian courts before their removal.
He said this applies to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, heads of federal courts, and state chief judges, ensuring due process before any action by the President or state governors.
He added that the investigation must be concluded within six weeks, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Elelu-Habeeb v. Attorney General of the Federation (2012).
According to him, Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) clearly states the procedure for removing the heads of Nigerian courts.
Section 292(1) provides that: “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances –
“(a) in the case of –
“Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate;
“Chief Judge of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal, or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State, by the governor acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly of the State.”
Onobun lamented that the procedure laid down does not include a role for the National Judicial Council in the removal of the aforementioned heads of courts.
He further argued that Section 292(1)(b) anomalously provides that, “In every other case outside the removal of the heads of courts, i.e., other justices, judges, kadis, etc., the recommendation of the National Judicial Council shall be a requirement to carry such removal through.”
“There is also nothing in the provisions to suggest that the Chief Executive and the Legislature, acting between them, need to substantiate their action with evidence,” he added.
Onobun said the provisions of the Constitution have left the heads of courts exclusively at the mercy of the President and the Governors and the Federal and State legislatures respectively, as the case may be, without the participation of the National Judicial Council.
“Consequently, the state of the constitutional provisions abuses the doctrine of separation of powers and the attendant checks and balances instituted by the Constitution. More fundamentally, it infringes upon the much-cherished independence of the Nigerian courts as it authorises the removal of heads of courts by the other arms without charge, trial, or culpability.
“Given the general provision in paragraph 21(b) and (d) of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Constitution that the NJC may recommend the removal of any head of court to the President in the case of Section 292(1)(a)(i) and to the Governors in the case of Section 292(1)(a)(ii), the constitutional provisions have the effect of laying down two (2) parallel procedures of removing heads of courts – one as between the President or Governor and the Legislature but excluding the NJC, and the other as between the NJC and the President or Governor but excluding the Legislature.”
He further argued that, “By involving the NJC, it ensured that such judicial personnel would only be removed upon evidence established with the skill and expertise of the council and not frivolously and/or arbitrarily.”
The bill was referred to the Constitution Review Committee for further legislative input ahead of the third and final reading.
