Ayodele Olalere
Following the forwarding of 11 names of persons to be appointed as Judges to the Senate by President Muhammadu Buhari, Access to Justice (A2J), has flayed the President for what it called ‘selective’ appointment.
The group, in a statement signed by it’s Convener, Jospeh Otteh, described the action of the President as ‘cherry-picking’.
It is recalled the National Judicial Council, NJC, had, in March 2020, recommended names of 33 persons and forwarded same to the President to be appointed as judges of the Federal high courts.
However, out of the names recommended, the President, in July, only forwarded 11 names to the senate for confirmation.
In the statement tagged ‘Cherry-Picking Persons to Appoint to Judicial Office Undermines Judicial Independence and Raises Questions of Misuse of Power,’ the group urged President Buhari to “offer cogent and justifiable reasons for rebuffing NJC list of judicial nominees.’
“In March 2020, the National Judicial Council (NJC) nominated 33 persons for appointment as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. And on Tuesday July 9th 2020, the Nigerian Senate read out President Buhari’s request for the confirmation of the appointment of 11 judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory following a letter written to that effect. In other words, the President decided not to appoint 22 nominees out of the list of 33 nominees forwarded by the NJC,” the statement stated.
“The process leading up to the appointment of high court judges in Nigeria is meant to be one that requires actions by both the judiciary and the executive. The process, initiated by the respective Judicial Service Commissions/Committee, is finalized by the NJC before it goes to the President for appointment. The President is expected to make the appointments within the “frame of reference” outlined by the NJC.
Unfortunately, the Judiciary’s own process for selecting its nominees for judicial (or appellate) judicial office has been very flawed, and in substantial breach of the NJC’s own appointment guidelines. Some of the standards and procedures established by the NJC’s Appointment Guidelines targeting the recruitment of the most qualified persons using a competitive, merit-based process have been sidelined and gone unobserved for some considerable time,” it added.
“Only a third of the names forwarded by the NJC to the President were appointed by the latter amidst controversies over the way the NJC selections were conducted in the first place. These Controversies have birthed several litigations on the subject. This raises important concerns of judicial independence, particularly when there is no explanation forthcoming as to what criteria informed the reason why some names from the list were appointed and others were not. Those concerns arise because of the huge potential for misusing the power to make appointments. That power can be used to blackmail, to coerce, extort, or obtain a quid pro quo from the Judiciary, or may otherwise be used illicitly, in a manner that ultimately undermines the independence of the Judiciary.”
The statement further stated the President have not explained why some names were drop for confirmation, and urged him to do so.
“He had a duty, to be transparent about his objections to the list, and to publicly state them. The President’s selection decisions lack transparency, disrespects judiciary and threaten judicial independence
The President’s appointment of a downsized number of Judges for the FCT High Court against a much larger list, and the absence of information justifying the selective appointments, blatantly disrespects the Judiciary, given the manner it was done, and the impression it creates is that the Executive controls the Judiciary even regarding matters pertaining to the affairs and organization of the Judiciary.”
“Access to Justice urges President Buhari to immediately furnish reasonable and transparent reasons for not appointing all the persons nominated by the NJC to him for appointment into the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,” the statement concluded.
