•House of Representatives
A bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution to make mandatory the recommendation of the National Judicial Council before the removal of heads of Nigerian courts, passed a second reading in the House of Representatives today.
The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on Constitution Review, was sponsored by the Speaker, Mr Tajudeen Abbas, reports The PUNCH.
Leading the debate on the general principles of the bill, Edo lawmaker, Marcus Onobun, said the intent of the bill is to alter Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria such that the heads of Nigerian courts –“Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (all of who may be removed by the President on an address by Senate), and Chief Judge of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State (all of who may be removed by the Governor of the appropriate state on an address by the appropriate State House of Assembly), shall only be removed from office upon prior investigation by the National Judicial Council of the allegations laid out in the address by Senate or the state legislatures respectively carried out and concluded within six weeks in line with the Supreme Court judgment in Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. A-G of the Federation & 2 Ors. (2012) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1318) 423.”
According to him, Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) clearly states the procedure for removing the heads of Nigerian courts.
Section 292 (1) provides that “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances – “(a) in the case of –“Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate;
“Chief Judge of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State, by the governor acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly of the State.”
Onobun, however, expressed worry that the procedure laid down does not include a role for the National Judicial Council in the removal of the aforementioned heads of courts.
He further argued that Section 292(1)(b) anomalously provides that “In every other case outside the removal of the heads of courts, i.e. other justices, judges, kadis, etc., the recommendation of the National Judicial Council shall be a requirement to carry such removal through.
“There is also nothing in the provisions to suggest that the Chief Executive and the Legislature, acting between them, need to substantiate their action with evidence.”
Onobun also told his colleagues that the provisions of the Constitution have left the heads of courts exclusively “At the mercy of the President and the Governors and the Federal and State legislatures respectively, as the case may be, without the participation of the National Judicial Council.
“Consequently, the state of the constitutional provisions abuses the doctrine of separation of powers and the attendant checks and balances instituted by the constitution as well as it, more fundamentally, infringes upon the much-cherished independence of the Nigerian courts as it authorises the removal of heads of courts by the other arms without charge, trial or culpability.
“Given the general provision in paragraph 21(b) and (d) of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Constitution that the NJC may recommend the removal of any head of court to the President in the case of section 292(1)(a)(i) and to the Governors in the case of section 292(1)(a)(ii), the constitutional provisions have the effect of laying down two (2) parallel procedures of removing heads of courts i.e. one as between the President or Governor and the Legislature but excluding the NJC and the other as between the NJC and the President or Governor but excluding the Legislature.”
He further argued that “By involving the NJC, it ensured that such judicial personnel would only be removed upon evidence established with the skill and expertise of the council and not frivolously and/or arbitrarily.
“It will also extinguish the ambiguity, nay absurdity, of the proposal that the members of a court could be removed subject only to procedures that were more onerous than the procedures for the removal of the head of the same court,” stressing that “The challenge to the independence of our courts must be removed once and for all.”
He urged his colleagues to support the bill, saying, “This is an opportunity to alter the Constitution and give what is already the law as laid down by the Supreme Court constitutional prominence thereby obscuring pretensions to ignorance; strengthen the doctrine of separation of powers; and advance our guardian constitutional principle of checks and balances by altering the Constitution in the terms of this bill.”
The bill was referred to the Constitution Review Committee for further legislative input ahead of the third and final reading.
