The House of Assembly of Imo State has codified the judgement of the National Judicial Commission (NJC) regarding the acting chief judge’s appointment, which the assembly has characterised as an ongoing extension.
Section 271(5) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Constitution, as modified in 1999, was said to have been violated by the conduct.
The House endorsed a proposal put forth by Dominic Ezerioha, who is both the chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary and a representative for the Oru West Constituency. The House urged NJC to promptly adhere to the constitutional process by making an appointment recommendation for a substantive chief judge, as required by law.
Ezerioha, while presenting the motion that was deemed urgent of public significance on the House floor, reminded the House that the Governor of a state has the authority to appoint a chief judge upon proposal by the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly, as stated in Section 271(4) of the Constitution.
He pointed out that the Governor has the constitutional authority to select the senior High Court judge to serve as acting chief justice until a permanent chief justice is appointed in cases where the position of chief justice becomes vacant or the current chief justice is unable to carry out their duties.
The member claims that the following provision of the Constitution—Section 271(5)—makes it quite plain that an acting appointment cannot be renewed after three months unless the National Joint Committee recommends it.
The state’s acting chief judge has been in office for what the chair of the House Committee on Judiciary called an excessively lengthy time.
The NJC has persisted in arbitrarily extending the appointment, rather than sending the name of a substantive nominee to the Governor for transmission to the House for approval, which has concerned him.
The lawmaker said that the constant prolongation weakens the constitutional procedure for selecting a substantive Chief Justice and amounted to the Governor usurping his duty.
The MP from Oru West voiced his worries in the motion about how the ongoing practice casts doubt on the State’s ability to administer justice and damages the concept of separation of powers.
As they deliberated the motion, the members heavily criticised the acting chief judge’s decision to remain in office indefinitely, claiming that this action violated Section 271(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
Promptly ending the practice of extending the appointment of the Acting Chief Judge and recommending a substantive Chief Judge, the House urged the NJC to do so.
Additionally, it emphasised the importance of NJC notifying the State Governor of the appointment of a substantive judge so that the Governor may submit the name to the House of Assembly for confirmation in line with constitutional requirements.