“Governors, Not The Constitution, Are The Problem” — Daudu SAN Blames Executive Overreach, Rejects NBA Role In Judges’ Removal
Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), JB Daudu, has criticized several judicial reform proposals currently before the National Assembly, describing them as lacking practical value.
In an interview with NAN on Thursday in Abuja, Daudu expressed particular concern about the proposed judicial resignation and succession protocol aimed at regulating resignation procedures for Justices and Judges.
“This is a typical example of institutional idleness,” Daudu stated. “How can these transfer mechanisms be observed in the event of sudden death, resignation as a result of grave illness or even sudden resignation as a result of compelling personal reasons? Such eventualities and their after effect cannot be regulated upon.”
The senior advocate argued that proponents of the amendments failed to recognize that courts are courts of records, with the chief registrar and supporting staff serving as permanent record keepers, not the Chief Judge or other heads of court.
Daudu also dismissed the proposal for mandatory National Judicial Council (NJC) investigations before the removal of heads of court as “the most curious of the proposed amendments,” noting that Section 292(1)(a)(i) & (ii) of the 1999 Constitution already requires NJC input before a head of court can be removed.
“The solution to acts of executive recklessness and lawlessness of attempts by governors to remove sitting chief judges is not because the present constitution does not forbid it. It is because of the attitudinal disposition of some governors to power,” he explained.
Regarding suggestions that the Nigerian Bar Association should have input in the removal of judges, Daudu declared the proposal “a non-starter,” advocating instead for the five NBA-nominated members to participate in matters relating to judicial discipline.
The learned silk also criticized proposals aimed at ensuring judicial continuity, which would empower newly elevated judges to conclude part-heard criminal matters rather than starting afresh.
“It is better to defer the swearing in of an appointed or promoted judge until when he has completed all his part-heard matters than to cause such a judicial personnel to return to a court that he has exited from,” Daudu suggested.
He concluded by emphasizing that the constitution should contain fundamental rules for governance rather than detailed operational procedures.
“It is not a factory manual on work and safety regulations. Our legislators should accord the constitution more seriousness than they are presently doing,” he stated.
