Imo Government Challenges NJC Authority Over Appointment of State Chief Judge

The Imo State Government has challenged the constitutional authority of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to direct which candidate should be submitted for consideration in the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge of the state.

The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, stated the government’s position while speaking with journalists, arguing that the NJC’s reported directive to the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) amounted to interference in the commission’s constitutionally protected independence.

The dispute follows a directive reportedly issued by the NJC during its 112th meeting in November concerning the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for Imo State.

Obinatu argued that although the NJC has the constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the governor, that power does not extend to determining which individual the State Judicial Service Commission must submit for consideration.

Citing Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Attorney-General maintained that the provision protects the independence of the State Judicial Service Commission and prevents external authorities from controlling the exercise of its functions.

He argued that the NJC could not rely on its position as a national judicial institution to assume powers constitutionally assigned to the state commission.

“Any directive requiring the State JSC to submit a particular candidate or dictating the outcome of its independent assessment would amount to unconstitutional interference,” Obinatu said.

He also cited Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable persons for nomination as Chief Judge.

According to him, Paragraph 21 of Part I of the Third Schedule empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate to the governor from among the persons submitted by the State JSC.

He further referred to Section 271(1) of the Constitution, which provides that a state Chief Judge is appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

Obinatu said these provisions establish separate responsibilities for the two institutions, with the State JSC identifying and advising on suitable candidates, while the NJC considers the names submitted and makes its recommendation to the governor.

He maintained that the NJC’s power to recommend a candidate should not be interpreted as authority to dictate whom the state commission must submit.

The Attorney-General acknowledged the NJC’s authority to establish and enforce guidelines and procedures for judicial appointments. However, he argued that such rules could not expand the council’s constitutional powers or override the independent functions of the State JSC.

He cited several judicial decisions in support of the government’s position, including Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (2012), Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission & Anor. v. Salisu & Ors. (2019) and Bamisile v. National Judicial Council & Ors. (2012).

Other cases referenced included FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022), NJC & Ors. v. Senlong & Ors. (2010) and Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors. (2024).

Obinatu said the authorities reinforced the principle that constitutional institutions must exercise their powers within the limits prescribed by law.

He stressed that the disagreement was not about institutional superiority but about ensuring that each body respected the constitutional boundaries of its responsibilities.

The Attorney-General warned that allowing the NJC to assume functions assigned to the State JSC could undermine the judicial appointment process and public confidence in the judiciary.

He insisted that the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for Imo State must follow the constitutional procedure while respecting the independent mandate of the state’s Judicial Service Commission.

The NJC’s response to the state government’s latest position was not included in the information provided.