Prominent senior lawyers have expressed strong opposition to the National Assembly’s proposal to introduce a five-year tenure for heads of superior courts in Nigeria. The legislative initiative, which aims to amend the 1999 Constitution, has sparked a heated debate among legal practitioners, many of whom argue that such changes could undermine the judiciary’s independence and stability.
Current Practice and Proposed Changes
Currently, heads of courts, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), serve until they reach the mandatory retirement age, barring cases of misconduct or promotion to higher courts. The National Assembly, however, seeks to introduce a maximum five-year tenure for these roles. This proposal aligns with practices in the executive and legislative branches, where tenure limits are constitutionally mandated.
Lawmakers contend that fixed tenures for heads of courts will enhance judicial efficiency, address concerns about overstay in office, and motivate judicial officers. Additionally, they propose establishing divisional Supreme Courts across the country to improve access to justice, reduce logistical challenges, and expedite case resolutions.
The two proposed bills—HB 1701, seeking to introduce tenures for judiciary heads, and HB 1731, advocating for regional divisions of the Supreme Court—have already passed their first readings in the House of Representatives.
Senior Advocates Criticize Proposals
Several senior lawyers, including Professors Awa Kalu (SAN) and Itse Sagay (SAN), and Chiefs Mike Ahamba (SAN) and Yusuf Ali (SAN), have voiced their reservations about the bills, describing them as unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the judiciary’s functioning.
- Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN:
Prof. Kalu dismissed the proposal for fixed tenures, arguing that judicial offices are distinct from administrative or political roles. “Judicial office is not like other offices where tenure limitation can be implemented. If a Chief Justice or Chief Judge is appointed, they should serve until they retire. This ensures continuity and preserves the integrity of the judicial process,” he said. - Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN:
Chief Ahamba labeled the proposal “illogical,” warning against politicizing the judiciary. He emphasized that judges, unlike elected officials, are appointed based on merit and competence. “The judiciary is not a political arm of government. Judges, like wine, improve with age and experience. Leave the judiciary alone,” he stated. - Mallam Yusuf Ali, SAN:
Mallam Ali questioned the necessity of altering a system that has worked effectively for decades. “Changing the tenure system without identifying existing issues risks creating new problems. A former head of court cannot seamlessly return as an ordinary judge—it’s an untenable arrangement,” he explained. - Prof. Itse Sagay, SAN:
Prof. Sagay argued that limiting tenures would disrupt judicial efficiency and institutional memory. “Longer service allows heads of courts to refine processes and deliver justice more effectively. This proposal seems to prioritize tenure rotation over competence and experience,” he noted.
Decentralization of the Supreme Court: A Divisive Idea
The proposal to decentralize the Supreme Court into regional divisions has also faced stiff opposition. Critics argue that the move could lead to inconsistent rulings and logistical challenges.
Prof. Kalu contended that a unified Supreme Court ensures consistency in legal interpretation. “America, a much larger country, has one Supreme Court. Introducing regional divisions could dilute the court’s authority and create discrepancies in judgments across zones,” he said.
Chief Ahamba echoed this sentiment, questioning the practicality of zonal Supreme Courts. “The Supreme Court is a national institution. Splitting it into zones undermines its purpose and creates unnecessary complications,” he remarked.
Call for Caution
The senior lawyers unanimously called on lawmakers to tread carefully, warning against making hasty amendments to the judiciary’s structure. “Amendments should address genuine issues, not create new ones. The judiciary must be preserved as an independent and stable institution,” Prof. Sagay emphasized.
As the proposed bills progress through legislative scrutiny, the debate highlights the delicate balance between reforming judicial structures and maintaining the judiciary’s autonomy and effectiveness. Stakeholders have urged the National Assembly to engage with legal experts and judicial officers to ensure that any constitutional amendments strengthen, rather than weaken, Nigeria’s judicial system.
