By Lillian Okenwa
As Nigerians look forward to the appointment of more justices to fill up the yawning vacancies at the Supreme Court although the National Judicial Council (NJC) maintains that it is not aware of the list of 22 justices penciled for elevation to the apex court, a close study of the list said to have emanated from the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC has begun to raise questions.
Currently, the Supreme Court is down to 10 justices. Section 230 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court of Nigeria shall consist of (a) The Chief Justice of Nigeria and (b) Such number of Justices of the Supreme Court, not exceeding Twenty-One.
From the constitutional provisions, Nigeria’s apex court is meant to be manned by a CJN and “such number of Justices of the Supreme Court, not exceeding 21…”
As it stands, the North Central and the South-East no longer have any representation at the Court presently constituted by the CJN and 9 justices. The North East and North West have two justices respectively. They will need an extra judge each to make up their number while the South-South and South-West have a full complement with 3 to each. In all, 12 justices will be needed to fill the vacancy.
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. But it also does appear that the South West always gets an extra judge while the North with more regions retains the highest number. 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?
Law Professor, Prof Alphonsus Okoh Alubo, SAN gave an opinion.
“It is ennobling that the National Judicial Council, has disowned (for now at least), the list in circulation, said to have emanated from the Federal Judicial Service Commission. It is also ennobling that the so-called list, has not been officially published and that has allowed a groundswell of opprobrium to the list, commendably. It is thus time, to make amends and ensure equal representation for all the Geo- political Zones. There must be no additional number of justices to Zones that have their full complements. If it was contemplated, it must be abandoned forthwith. The current vacuum at the Supreme Court is unacceptable and the NJC and the President must move at the speed of light, to ensure the Supreme Court, has the full number of 21 Justices, specified by the Constitution.”
Another teacher of law and former Chair of, the National Human Rights Commission. Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu shared some thoughts:
“The point of this is to lock in long-term disparity in the distribution of the seats on the Supreme Court bench. We have 6 Geo-Political Zones and 21 seats on the Supreme Court. Since 6 is not a factor of 21, it means that if the Supreme Court is at optimum composition, some Geo-Political zones could have more judges than others.
“Now, as you know, replacement on the Supreme Court is done on the basis of zonal like-for-like. So, if a judge from South West goes, another from South West replaces him or her. And although the Supreme Court got a full complement of 21 Justices on November 10, 2020, with the appointment of 8 justices, the number has never been this low and so the disparity in geo-ethnic composition has never been tested. This is the 1st time that is up for grabs. If a Chief Justice from the SW can grab another slot for the Zone, then he engineers long-term advantage for the Zone in the composition of the Supreme Court.
“The thing to do, you would think, would have been to establish a baseline of 3 Justices per Zone and then have a set of substantive criteria with reference to which the remaining 3 are to be allocated but not on the basis of Geo-Political or ethnic equity. So, for instance, it could be used to redress skill or expertise gaps. For example, you could say one goes to academics; another to SANs; to women or to expertise in natural resources law, etc. But no, it looks like it is all ethnic grab to be locked in at the moment.
“In November 2020 when Helen Ogunwumiju (South West) was sworn in with Lawal Garba, (North West), Abdu Aboki (North West), and M M Saulawa (North West), Adamu Jauro (North East), Samuel Oseji (South South), Tijani Abubakar (North East), and Emmanuel Agim (South South), you still had Rhodes Vivour (Lagos), Ariwoola (Oyo), and Kekere -Ekun (Lagos). Ogunwumiju (Ondo) made them 4 from SW. So, now, they have 3 from SW, Ariwoola will say he is appointing a replacement for Rhodes Vivour. And Abiru whom he wants to press into service is from Lagos.”
Prof R.A.C.E Achara had a divergent view:
“I don’t believe much in geographical demographics for judicial appointments. Instead of addressing the monumental problems that undermine the integrity of our judicial, nay entire legal, system, those who have enthroned the rot have continually managed to distract us with peripherals and incidentals, which even if solved one way or another, cannot possibly address the fundamental problems…
“As I have said before, we don’t need more than 7 justices in our Supreme Court – one panel only of the CJN and 6 Justices. Low-quality, inconsistent, and sometimes incoherent reasoning precipitates the overflow of appeals that we now see. A top-quality bench of Supreme Court justices will give coherent guidance sufficient to stanch the avalanche of useless appeals.”
To Dr. Suleiman Nchi, Senior Lecturer and a former Dean Faculty of Law, Nasarawa State University, “It seems the full Supreme Court will still not be 36 Justices (37 + FCT), so you probably have to use the 6 geopolitical zones as some form of equitable basis for such appointments to reflect national spread, hopefully without compromising competence and integrity. Even then some zones may still end up having more members of the apex bench depending on the prevailing and dominating political currents.
“Beyond any constitutional and other legal requirements, appointments into public offices are often finally based on policy and political (networks and relationships) considerations. That’s the reality.
“The ideal is to insist on merit, competency, and integrity. Then, of course, it matters not where an appointee was born! The controversy is because such appointments are cynically regarded as not a call to service but as patronage and when that happens the appointees (who often get appointed not for their competence and integrity but for their descent or social and political connections) see their appointments from those contexts.
“Their loyalty is, therefore, not to the institution or community they are to serve but to their mentors and patrons. Sadly, such appointees are often incompetent and mercenary and so most susceptible to corruption.”
