NJC can’t dictate Imo chief judge nominee — AG

Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu

The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, has questioned the constitutional authority of the National Judicial Council to dictate the candidate the state should nominate for appointment as its substantive Chief Judge.

Obinatu insisted that the Imo State Judicial Service Commission has an independent constitutional responsibility to assess and submit suitable candidates, saying the NJC cannot “dictate, control or substitute its preferred candidate” for the commission’s choice.

He stated this in a statement issued on Friday, made available to PUNCH Online, following a directive issued by the NJC to the Imo State Judicial Service Commission at its 112th meeting held on November 3.

The directive concerned the process of appointing a substantive Chief Judge for Imo State, prompting the Attorney-General to clarify the constitutional responsibilities of both institutions.

Obinatu argued that although the NJC has the constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the governor, it does not have the additional power to determine the individual whose name the State Commission should submit for consideration.

“The NJC’s constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the governor does not confer on it the additional power to determine or dictate the candidate the State Judicial Service Commission must submit to it,” he said.

Citing Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Attorney-General said the State Judicial Service Commission was constitutionally protected from external interference in the exercise of its functions.

He said, “The State Judicial Service Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person in exercising its constitutionally assigned powers.

“This provision establishes a clear constitutional safeguard against external interference in the commission’s responsibilities and cannot be overridden by the NJC through administrative directives or procedural guidelines.”

Obinatu added that the NJC could not rely on its national institutional status to exercise control over the state commission.

“The NJC cannot invoke its national institutional status or its recommendation powers to exercise control over the Imo State JSC in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution,” he said.

The Attorney-General also referenced Section 271(1) and relevant provisions of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which outline the respective roles of the State Judicial Service Commission, NJC and governor in appointing a substantive Chief Judge.

He explained that Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable persons for nomination as Chief Judge, while Paragraph 21(c) of Part I empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate to the governor from among the persons submitted by the State Commission.

Section 271(1), he noted, provides that the appointment is made by the governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

According to him, the constitutional provisions establish distinct responsibilities for the three institutions.

“The State JSC identifies and advises on suitable candidates, the NJC considers the submitted names and makes its recommendation to the Governor, while the Governor exercises the appointing authority subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly,” he said.

On the NJC’s Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers, Obinatu acknowledged the council’s authority to establish procedures for judicial appointments but maintained that such guidelines must operate within the limits of the Constitution.

“Such guidelines cannot confer powers beyond those granted by the Constitution or be used to compromise the independent functions of the State JSC,” he said.

He cited previous court decisions, 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 decisions underscored the need for constitutional institutions to exercise their powers within the limits prescribed by law.

He maintained that the dispute was not about institutional superiority but respect for constitutional boundaries.

“The issue is not a contest for institutional superiority between the NJC and the State JSC, but the need for each institution to respect the constitutional boundaries of its authority,” he said.

He urged that the ongoing appointment process be conducted in accordance with the Constitution, maintaining that the NJC’s recommendation powers should not be interpreted as authority to control the State Commission’s independent selection process.