Lawyers criticize a proposed bill by Nigeria’s House of Representatives to limit tenures of top judicial officers, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria, to five years. Critics argue it could politicize appointments, disrupt meritocracy, and disadvantage states with younger judges, while advocates claim it enhances efficiency.
A proposed bill by Nigeria’s House of Representatives seeking to limit the tenure of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and other top judicial officers to five years has sparked controversy among legal professionals. The bill, introduced by Manu Soro, aims to amend the constitution to establish a non-renewable five-year term for court heads, including state chief judges and appellate court presidents.
Judicial officers serve until they reach the mandatory retirement age or are removed for other reasons. Proponents of the bill argue that the change would enhance efficiency and motivation among judicial officers while addressing concerns over prolonged tenures.
However, critics, including lawyers and members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), strongly disagree. Bridget Edokwe, the NBA’s National Publicity Secretary, described the current system as stable and effective, questioning the need for change. Similarly, Lagos-based lawyer Marcellus Onah warned that the proposal might politicize appointments, undermining meritocracy.
Human rights lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu highlighted potential risks, such as appointing individuals who might become unfit to serve due to health or other issues. He emphasized that the existing framework, which balances tenure with retirement age and years of service, offers greater stability and flexibility.
The bill’s critics argue that altering the system could disproportionately disadvantage states that appoint younger judges while benefiting those that promote older candidates. They call for maintaining the current structure, which allows judges to serve until 70 or after 35 years in service, whichever comes first.
