Recently, a bill introduced by the Nigerian House of Representatives sparked debate among legal professionals. The proposed law seeks to limit the tenure of key judicial officers, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), the President of the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judges of the 36 states, to five years. After this period, they would either return to their previous roles as judges or retire if they reach the retirement age.
This new proposal, which aims to amend the Nigerian Constitution, has drawn criticism from many lawyers. Under the current system, judicial leaders remain in their roles until they retire at 70 or after 35 years of service. The bill, however, aims to ensure more efficient service by limiting terms and preventing the overstay of judicial heads.
Bridget Edokwe, the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), is strongly opposed to the idea. She believes that the existing system works well, ensuring stability in the judiciary. She argues that there is no need to change something that is not broken.
Other legal experts, like Lagos-based lawyer Marcellus Onah, have also expressed concern. They argue that setting a five-year limit might turn judicial appointments into political favors instead of appointments based on merit and experience. Onah worries that younger judges from some states could be unfairly disadvantaged by this change, especially those who are appointed to higher courts later in their careers.
Human rights lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu adds another perspective, questioning the motivations behind the proposal. He believes the current system, which mandates retirement at 70 or after 35 years of service, is more effective. Ugwummadu also warns that a fixed five-year term could lead to problematic situations, such as a judge remaining in office despite being physically or mentally unfit.
In conclusion, many legal professionals argue that the proposed five-year tenure could undermine the independence of the judiciary. They suggest keeping the current system, which allows for retirement based on age or years of service, as it ensures that judges can serve effectively without political interference.
