A bill proposing an amendment to the 1999 Constitution, which seeks to mandate the recommendation of the National Judicial Council before the removal of heads of Nigerian courts, has advanced to the second reading in the House of Representatives.
The bill, championed by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, has been forwarded to the House Committee on Constitution Review for further scrutiny.
Leading the debate, Edo lawmaker Marcus Onobun explained that the proposed amendment aims to revise Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution to require an NJC-led investigation before the removal of top judicial officers.
The bill specifies that judicial heads—including the Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, President of the National Industrial Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory , Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal , and President of the Customary Court of Appeal, can currently be removed by the President upon Senate approval.
Similarly, state-level judicial heads such as the Chief Judge of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal, and President of a Customary Court of Appeal can be dismissed by the Governor with the consent of the State House of Assembly.
The proposed amendment seeks to ensure that before such removals take effect, the NJC must first investigate the allegations within six weeks, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. A-G of the Federation & 2 Ors. (2012) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1318) 423.
Onobun emphasized that Section 292(1)(a)(i) and (ii) already outlines the process for dismissing judicial heads.
It stated that “A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances, (a) in the case of, Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and President, Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate; Chief Judge of a State, Grand Kadi of a Sharia Court of Appeal or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State, by the governor acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly of the State.”
However, Onobun pointed out a significant gap in the existing process—the NJC has no role in the removal of court heads, despite being involved in the dismissal of other judicial officers.
He noted, “In every other case outside the removal of the heads of courts, i.e., other justices, judges, kadis, etc., the recommendation of the National Judicial Council shall be a requirement to carry such removal through.” He further stressed that there is no legal requirement for the President, Governors, or Legislatures to present evidence before proceeding with the removal of court heads.
He argued that this omission leaves the judiciary vulnerable to undue political influence.
“Consequently, the state of the constitutional provisions abuses the doctrine of separation of powers and the attendant checks and balances instituted by the Constitution as well as it, more fundamentally, infringes upon the much-cherished independence of the Nigerian courts as it authorizes the removal of heads of courts by the other arms without charge, trial or culpability.”
According to Onobun, the NJC already has constitutional authority under paragraph 21(b) and (d) of Part I of the Third Schedule to recommend the removal of court heads to the President or Governors.
Yet, the Constitution currently allows two separate removal procedures—one involving the Executive and Legislature, and another requiring NJC involvement.
He maintained that incorporating the NJC in all cases would ensure judicial personnel are removed only after a proper, expert-led review rather than through arbitrary decisions.
“By involving the NJC, it ensured that such judicial personnel would only be removed upon evidence established with the skill and expertise of the council and not frivolously and/or arbitrarily,” Onobun said. He further highlighted the inconsistency in the current law, where members of a court face stricter dismissal procedures than the court’s head. “It will also extinguish the ambiguity, nay absurdity, of the proposal that the members of a court could be removed subject only to procedures that were more onerous than the procedures for the removal of the head of the same court,” he argued.
Calling on his colleagues to support the amendment, Onobun stated, “This is an opportunity to alter the Constitution and give what is already the law as laid down by the Supreme Court constitutional prominence thereby obscuring pretensions to ignorance; strengthen the doctrine of separation of powers; and advance our guardian constitutional principle of checks and balances by altering the Constitution in the terms of this bill.”
Following the debate, the bill was referred to the Constitution Review Committee for further legislative action ahead of its third and final reading.
