*Merit must be fundamental – Adegborioye

*Politically exposed candidates should be disqualified — Ochai

*Public scrutiny should be encouraged—Garba

*Process must be rigorous, robust – Anne

*There must be a minimum threshold of integrity — Edu

*Political manipulation must be resisted — Ojo

*Candidates must undergo transparency test — Prof Erugo, SAN

IN a shift from the traditional process of appointing Supreme Court Justices, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Tanko Muhammad, recently called for open nomination to fill six vacant slots in the apex court.

In a letter addressed to all judicial officers in Nigeria, the CJN said it had become necessary to fill the vacant positions caused by the death of Justice Sylvester Ngwuta and Justice Samuel Oseji and the retirement of Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour.

Three other Justices, Mary Odili, Ejembi Eko and Abdu Aboki will also be retiring from judicial service in 2022 on attaining the age of 70 years thereby opening two of the slots for South-East, one for South-South geopolitical zone, one for South-West, one for North-Central and one for North-West geopolitical zone of the country.

Specifying the criteria for the selection process, the CJN noted that aside from relevant educational qualifications, the nominated candidates will be scrutinised by the National Judiciary Commission, NJC and members of the public. In this edition, Law and Human Rights sought the opinion of lawyers on the development and what the NJC must do to ensure that only competent candidates are selected.

Candidates must undergo transparency test — Prof Erugo, SAN

Prof. Sam Erugo opined that nominated candidates should be subjected to transparent tests to determine the best in terms of competence for the appointment.

He said: “The open call for nominations is the first step in a transparent process. By practice, the nomination is restricted to serving Justices of the Court of Appeal. We have deserving Justices of that Court who distinguished themselves over the years on the bench. The records should speak for them in terms of the number of judgments delivered, values or ethics, etc. Stakeholders should be able to nominate based purely on merit and not selfish or sectional interests.

“Stakeholders should also be focused on the entire process, including protesting questionable nominations, to ensure that only credible and competent candidates scale the nomination stage. Nominated candidates should be subjected to transparent tests to determine the best in terms of competence, for an appointment. Competence here must be seen in terms of both knowledge, skills and values expected in the character of a Justice of the Supreme Court.”

Candidates must be grounded in law — Fashanu

Babatunde Fashanu, SAN, said: “That the invitation is openly made for nominations at all is good. That it is also made to qualified non-judge lawyers is superb. The implication is that there will be a wider field to choose from and not just from the Justices of the Court of Appeal but also the various High Courts at the federal and state levels. There are equally well-qualified lawyers in private practice especially in the inner bar (Senior Advocates of Nigeria), in government and the academia that can be nominated and considered.

“It is particularly gratifying that Judges to be considered are required to have delivered 10 judgments within the last two years and lawyers must have handled 10 cases to Judgment within the last five years. This will ensure that nominees are well-grounded in law and are very current which will have a positive effect on the quality of their performance at the Supreme Court. It is a welcome development.”

Political manipulation must be resisted — Ojo

Gbenga Ojo said: “It is important to get the right persons with cognate experience. No nepotism or political manipulations. The politicians will want to influence the list in order to get their candidates, even if not suitable so that such candidates may be manipulated in future particularly in election cases. There are very good lawyers with requisite experience and competencies both from the inner and outer bar and even in academia. But the key fact is transparency.

“The government or political parties or politicians should not be allowed to hijack the process. Legal practice is a small circle. Virtually all experience stakeholders know each other. We know those that can do the job. Politicians should not be allowed to hijack the process. An input from NBA is also important because some of those that may show interest are members of the bar inclusive of the inner bar. NBA without fear or favour will assess them and submit a report.”

There must be a minimum threshold of integrity — Edu

Welfare Secretary of Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Kunle Edu said: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria is the apex court in the country and its decisions are final in any matter before it. Parties can only appeal to the Almighty God from there. For this reason, the Supreme Court Justices are expected to be seasoned and distinguished jurists. Their decisions may make or mar the progress of the nation. Truly, every nation is always at the mercy of its Supreme Court.

“Therefore, nominees for the Supreme Court bench must be top-notch, men of untainted integrity and proven knowledge of the law. In as much as factors like state of origin and religion may be considered in selecting who eventually gets elevated to the Supreme Court bench, merit and competence must not be sacrificed under any guise. There must be a minimum threshold of integrity and competence for the nominees to meet and this threshold must never be compromised. I support advocates of a mixed Supreme Court bench.”

Process must be rigorous, robust – Anne

Anne Agi is of the view that the process should be thorough, robust and rigorous. She said: “It is important that the system for appointment of judges be very transparent as it will ensure that merit is used. We must emulate the developed countries where the process for the appointment of judges is rigorous, robust and thorough. This ensures that the best officers emerge.

“We must look into the leadership, composition and membership of the appointing Commission. Only persons of great integrity should be appointed. Furthermore, there is no strong credible, effective independent oversight system as the members of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, FJSC is also members of the National Judicial Council, NJC.

This hampers checks and balances in the system and so should be looked into. The legislature must begin to take itself seriously. A situation where the legislature is now a rubber stamp for executive nominees and where such nominees irrespective of how poorly they perform during the screening exercise, are still cleared, cannot make for a robust judiciary.

“The NJC guidelines for appointment of judges need to be amended to include mandatory proficiency test for candidates to the Bench. Once this exam is taken, there should be a benchmark and anyone who does not meet it, should not be appointed. This test will eliminate the use of manoeuvring, ethnicity and cronyism in appointing judges. Only persons who exhibit brilliance and competence should be appointed.”

Public scrutiny should be encouraged—Garba

Former Chairman, NBA, Katsina branch, Garba Abubakar said: “I’m of the view that the NJC and Nigeria at large are getting it wrong in terms of selection of best candidates for appointment of judges generally. The process is not transparent to such an extent that it gives room for the stakeholders to decide who and who are to be appointed to such sacred positions. The story would have been different if we borrow a leaf from other jurisdictions such as the Republic of Kenya where every candidate wishing to apply for the bench should submit his expression of interest to the commission. Thereafter, the candidates would be subjected to public scrutiny through live television interviews. The link of the interview should be sent online via Twitter, Facebook etc to enable members of the public to comment on the propriety or otherwise of the person to be appointed to such positions.

“Anybody with integrity issue on a given candidate is free to comment on it and those comments should be tabled to the candidate for his reaction. I’m of the view that there is a huge gap in our legal framework for appointing judges and unless something urgent is done, the story would remain the same.”

Politically exposed candidates should be disqualified — Ochai

Emmanuel Ochai said: “It is a welcome development that the vacant positions in the Supreme Court are about to be filled. However, the selection process has to be transparent and only the best candidates should scale through. Though the quota system still applies in the selection, it is important that a position like the Justice of the Supreme Court be occupied by only those who are very competent and not people who are politically connected. It’s a very sensitive position that should be occupied by people who are legally sound and morally upright.”

Merit must be fundamental – Adegborioye

Adenrele Adegborioye said: “As far as I am concerned, merit should be the fundamental consideration as regards the appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court. This is contrary to the current practice where the appointment is strictly based on a quota system. In as much as I recognise that there is a need to ensure that all geographical regions are adequately represented in the composition of Justices of the Supreme Court, I believe that 80 per cent consideration for appointment should be based on merit while 20 per cent consideration should be based on the need to ensure geographical balancing only in the event that where relying strictly on merit would totally deny certain regions of having their indigene in the Supreme Court.

“But while adhering to the balancing principle, it should only apply to 20 per cent of the composition of the Supreme Court Justices. This is the only system of appointment that can return the Supreme Court to the glory years. The current system of appointment strictly on quota system and lobbying is not only detrimental but has made the Supreme Court lose its prestige, integrity and confidence of the people.”