By Godswill Iyoha Iyoke
The question has been “when the nomination is concluded and 12 justices are selected for appointment, what will be the criteria for assigning extra slots to a region? Up for nomination on the said list are justices from the South-West and South-South, regions that already have a complete number at the court… Whether 12 or 11 justices are eventually appointed, when the vacant slots are taken, how will the remaining 4 or 3 justices be appointed? What will be basis for their being chosen?”
It was also suggested that 3 extra slots are reserved for Sharia’h law jurists and that although the constitution made similar provisions for Customary law jurists, appointment under this window came only once.
As suggested, the the extra slots should neither be to Shariah nor Customary law jurists. It should be reserved for academics or professors of law, as these have either distinguished themselves in learning or exhibited the aptitude to learn. We can trust such distinguished individuals to guide other jurists in panels. Just as research-oriented academics, professorial jurists are more inclined towards uncovering the truth or the justice in a cause, than business oriented technical jurists, who just wish to dispense with a case and get on with other business. It explains the absence of rhyme or philosophical reasoning in judgments.
As justice is the theme of every cause of action, there isn’t need for customary or Shariah law jurists, as the principles of these laws ought to be construed as facts to be established or proven whenever the need arises. Just as in the principle of Case-stated, in the determination of a constitutional principle, controversial principles of customary or Islamic and law could be stated before any State Sharia’h or customary court as the case may be. This ought to be so, if we are to preserve the integrity of the common law system, which we practice.
Godswill Iyoha Iyoke. Special interest in Public Interest and Development law
