Okutepa Faults Imo Attorney-General Over NJC Intervention in Chief Judge Appointment

Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, has criticised the Imo State Attorney-General over his objection to the National Judicial Council’s (NJC) intervention in the process of appointing a substantive Chief Judge for the state.

Okutepa described the Attorney-General’s position as misconceived, arguing that the NJC acted within its constitutional powers when it directed the Imo State Judicial Service Commission to include Justice Ijeoma Agugua among the candidates being considered for the position.

Justice Agugua, the most senior judge of the Imo State High Court, currently serves as the Acting Chief Judge.

The senior lawyer stressed that the NJC’s intervention did not amount to an automatic appointment of Agugua. Rather, he said, it was intended to ensure that she received an opportunity to be assessed alongside other qualified candidates.

Okutepa explained that the Constitution assigns distinct responsibilities to the State Judicial Service Commission, the NJC, the governor and the State House of Assembly in the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge.

He cited Paragraph 6(a), Part II of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable candidates for judicial appointments.

He also referred to Paragraph 21(c), Part I of the same schedule, which empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate from the names submitted to it.

Addressing the Attorney-General’s reliance on Section 202 of the Constitution, Okutepa argued that the provision guaranteeing the independence of the Judicial Service Commission should not be interpreted in a way that undermines the NJC’s constitutional responsibilities.

The disagreement centres on the extent of the NJC’s authority in the selection process and the role of the state’s judicial institutions in recommending candidates for the substantive Chief Judge position.