Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed October 15 to deliver judgment in the suit challenging the power of the President forwarding the names of 11 nominees for appointment as judges of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to the Senate for confirmation.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter, on Wednesday, for judgment after the parties have adopted their respective briefs of arguments and adumbrated on their submission.
A legal practitioner, Oladimeji Ekengba the plaintiff in the matter had filed the suit in which he made the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of Federation and Minister of Justice, Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate, the clerk of the Senate, Chief of Justice of Nigeria and the National Judicial Council respondents.
Adopting his brief of argument, Ekengba urged the Court to hold that the procedure adopted by the President who forwarded the names of the 11 nominees recommended to him for appointment as judges of the Federal Capital Territory to the Senate for confirmation is unconstitutional.
He urged the Court to determine whether, by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2)of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has power to appoint, screen, confirm persons recommended as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
Whether by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2)of the Constitution the President can abdicate his duty and responsibilities to the Senate for the appointment of persons as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
Whether the forwarding of the names of Abubakar Useni Musa, Edward Okpe, B. Abubakar, M. Francis, Jude Nwabueze, Josephine Enobi, Christopher Opeyemi, Mohammed Idris, Hassan Maryam Aliyu, Fashola Akeem Adebowale and Hamza Mu’azu all of whom recommended by the National Judicial Council to the President and judges of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory can be subjected to the Senate for screening and confirmation contrary to and in breach of section 256(1) of the Constitution.
The plaintiff further prayed the court for a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2) of the Constitution, the Senate lacks the power to appoint, screen and confirm persons recommended as judges of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, who is not head of the court.
He urged the court to declare the purported appointment as unconstitutional and void.
He also urged the court to hold that the appointment of the 11 new judges can not be subject to Senate confirmation.
But, Tinuola Babalola who represented the Attorney General of the federation and the President urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.
She said that the plaintiff had no (locus standi ) legal right to institute the action.
Other defendants’ lawyers also raised objection to the suit insisting that the plaintiff lack locus standi while the National Judicial Council asked the Court to remove its name as a respondent because it has done nothing wrong.
