|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Claim: An X user claims appointing the new Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) is illegal and unconstitutional.
Verdict: False. The constitution and legal experts adjudged the new Acting CJN’s appointment as a judicial norm and nothing short of the constitution’s provision. Credible news outlets have also reported that the appointment is based on the constitution’s provisions.
Full Text
Following the retirement of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, and the subsequent appointment of his successor, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, an X user and financial expert, Kalu Aja (@FinPlanKaluAja1), claimed that Mrs Kekere-Ekun’s recent appointment as CJN is both illegal and unconstitutional.
“According to the Nigerian constitution, which the President and the CJN swore to, this is illegal and unconstitutional,” he wrote
Mr Aja boasted about the federal character mentioned in the constitution in section 14(3).
“The composition of the (g)overnment of the federation or any of its agencies, and the conduct of its affairs, shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria…” he also wrote.
Along with the post, he included a picture of the president of the nation, Bola Tinubu, and the newly appointed CJN, Ms Kekere-Ekun, shaking hands.
The post, made on Saturday, Aug. 24, 2024, has generated over 453 comments, 2,200 reposts, and 6,300 likes and has been viewed over 1 million times as of Sunday, Aug. 25, 2024.
In reaction to the assertion, X users queried the rationality of the statement in relation to the provisions of the Constitution.
‘The constitution is clear, “the president shall appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions…”’ @jagabanolu responded.
“The law of succession states the next most senior based on ascension to the Supreme Court becomes the CJN.” @dolapo101 likewise countered.
Seeing the unending controversy the claim had generated, DUBAWA decided to verify and look into the criteria for appointing a CJN in Nigeria.
Verification
We checked the 1999 Nigerian constitution for its provisions on the appointment of the CJN. Chapter seven (7), section 231(1), states that the appointment of a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria shall be made by the president, based on the National Judicial Council (NJC)’s recommendation and subject to the Senate’s confirmation.
Furthermore, section 231 (4) states that if the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant, or if the person occupying the office is unable to perform the functions required of the office, the president of the federation shall appoint the most the senior Justice of the Supreme Court to perform those functions until a person has been officially appointed to undertake such functions.
DUBAWA discovered that the NJC had recommended Mrs Kekere-Ekun to the president for consideration before she became the Acting CJN.
Voice of Nigeria (VON) reports that Ms Kekere-Ekun would remain the Acting CJN until the Senate’s confirmation, which would fully establish her role as CJN. This further reflects the manifestation of the constitution’s provisions in the appointment. Channels also reports a similar development.
The federal character principle that the claimant referenced ensures that public appointments to public service institutions reflect the country’s language, ethnic, religious, and geographic diversity. Section 14 (3), which concerns the principle, broadly addresses the composition of the federation’s government and its agencies, emphasising that the operation of its work should be guided by national unity without prejudice.
However, no detail of the provision specifically addresses the appointment of the CJN.
What legal experts have to say
DUBAWA spoke to Amina Miango, the Media in National Elections (MiNE) project manager at the Centre for Journalism and Innovation (CJID), and a lawyer about the claim.
Ms Miango stated that the “legal profession is based on seniority.” She explained that Justices of the Supreme Court were not appointed simultaneously, so they are not all eligible for an elevated position simultaneously. So, when a vacant seat, such as the office of the Chief Justice, is to be occupied, the most senior person is picked for the role.
The law expert pointed out that the claimant’s reference to the federal character principle only applies to the executive arm of government or employment cases. She stated that the judiciary operates distinctively, where the government engages persons in that arm by appointment.
She mentioned that although no law automatically supports appointing a judicial officer by seniority, such has been the modus operandi—the practice.
DUBAWA contacted another lawyer, Christiana Longe, the Media Freedom Project Manager at CJID, about the claim. In her response, she stated that there is a hierarchy in the judicial system, which significantly influences appointments such as the CJN’s office.
“There is a hierarchy to this thing. The Justices of the Supreme Court already know who would become the next Chief Judge,” Ms Longe stated.
She further explained that the judicial system has a “first court” and a “second court” in that order. She stated that before the former CJN’s retirement, he had been the first court, while his successor, Justice Kekere-Ekun, had been the second. Consequently, every person realises when it is his turn to be appointed.
“…The former Chief Judge was the first court before his retirement, and the newly appointed Chief was the second court. Everybody knows when it is his turn.”
The lawyer pointed out that while the highlighted status quo above is the core criterium for the CJN appointment, the president’s appointment and the Senate’s nomination were formalities.
Conclusion
The constitution and legal experts have adjudged the new Acting CJN’s appointment as a judicial norm and complies with the constitution.
