Lawyers Slam Five-Year Tenure Proposal: “A Disservice to Young Judges”

A recent proposal by the House of Representatives to introduce a five-year tenure for judicial heads, including the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), President of the Court of Appeal, and Chief Judges across the country, has sparked outrage among legal professionals who argue the move is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

The bill, introduced by Manu Soro, a representative from Bauchi State, aims to alter the Constitution to impose fixed five-year, non-renewable terms for key judicial officers. These positions include the CJN, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and similar posts at state and federal levels, such as the Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal and the President of the Customary Court of Appeal.

Currently, judicial heads serve until they reach the mandatory retirement age or are removed from office, a system some legal experts believe ensures stability and competence. However, proponents of the bill argue that the proposed changes would improve service efficiency and prevent overstay in office, claiming it would create a more dynamic and accountable judiciary.

Many in the legal profession, however, strongly disagree. Bridget Edokwe, the National Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), criticized the move, stressing that the current system already functions effectively and ensures judicial stability. “There is no need to change a system that is not flawed,” she said, adding that the proposal could destabilize an otherwise stable judiciary.

Lagos-based lawyer Marcellus Onah echoed this sentiment, warning that limiting tenures to five years could turn judicial appointments into political decisions rather than merit-based ones. Onah emphasized that the current retirement age allows for the appointment of judges based on experience and career achievement, rather than political considerations. He further expressed concern that the bill would disadvantage states that appoint younger, more promising judges, citing examples of states where older candidates are appointed, potentially stifling the professional growth of younger judges.

Human rights lawyer Malachy Ugwummadu also weighed in on the issue, arguing that the current retirement system—based on a fixed age of 70 or 35 years of service—is already fair. He raised concerns about the potential consequences of the five-year tenure limit, particularly in cases where a judicial officer appointed to a five-year term is incapable of fulfilling their duties due to ill health or other reasons. “If you impose a fixed five-year term, you risk being stuck with a leader who may not be able to serve effectively due to health or senility,” Ugwummadu warned, suggesting that the current system allows for flexibility when necessary.

While the bill’s sponsors argue that the reform is necessary to promote efficiency, the legal community remains largely unconvinced. Many fear the proposed changes could undermine the judicial independence that has been a cornerstone of Nigeria’s democracy and open the door to political interference in judicial appointments.

As the House of Representatives continues to debate the bill, it remains to be seen whether the concerns of the legal profession will be taken into account, or if the proposal will be pushed forward with little regard for the stability and integrity of the judiciary.