Get Guardian on GoogleSenior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, has faulted the Imo State Attorney-General over his objection to the National Judicial Council’s (NJC) intervention in the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for the state.
Okutepa described the Attorney-General’s position as misconceived, insisting that the NJC acted within its constitutional responsibilities by asking the Imo State Judicial Service Commission to include Justice Ijeoma Agugua in the list of candidates for consideration.
Justice Agugua is the most senior judge of the Imo State High Court and currently serves as Acting Chief Judge.
Okutepa said the NJC’s request did not mean that Justice Agugua must automatically become the substantive Chief Judge. Rather, he said, it would give her a fair opportunity to be assessed alongside other eligible candidates.
The senior lawyer explained that the Constitution gives different responsibilities to the State Judicial Service Commission, NJC, governor and State House of Assembly in the appointment process.
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.
He also cited Paragraph 21(c), Part I, which empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate from the names submitted to it.
Addressing the Attorney-General’s reliance on Section 202, Okutepa argued that the provision on the independence of the Judicial Service Commission should not be used to frustrate the NJC’s constitutional responsibilities.
