…insists Constitution guarantees State JSC’s independence in recommending candidates
The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Hon. Paul Obinatu, has emphasised the constitutional independence of the state’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in the process of appointing a substantive Chief Judge, insisting that the National Judicial Council (NJC) must respect the commission’s constitutionally assigned responsibilities.
- …insists Constitution guarantees State JSC’s independence in recommending candidates
- ALSO READ: NJC suspends three judges for one year without pay
Obinatu, in a statement issued on Friday and made available to journalists in Abuja, maintained that although the NJC has the responsibility to recommend a candidate to the Governor for appointment as Chief Judge, it cannot dictate the candidate the State JSC must identify and submit for consideration.
His position followed a directive reportedly issued by the NJC to the Imo State JSC at its 112th meeting held on November 3, 2026, concerning the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for the state.
The Attorney-General argued that the constitutional framework clearly defines the responsibilities of both institutions, stressing that the NJC’s recommendation powers do not extend to controlling the independent assessment and selection process of the State Commission.
Central to his argument is Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides that the State Judicial Service Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person in exercising its constitutional functions.
According to him, the provision guarantees the Commission’s institutional independence and protects its responsibilities from external interference.
He said: “The NJC lacks the constitutional authority to dictate, control or substitute its preferred candidate for the independent assessment and recommendation process entrusted to the Imo State Judicial Service Commission under the Constitution.”
Obinatu further explained that the respective responsibilities of the NJC and the State JSC are provided for under Section 271(1) and the relevant provisions of the Third Schedule to the Constitution.
Specifically, Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable persons for nomination as Chief Judge of the state.
On the other hand, Paragraph 21(c) of Part I of the Third Schedule empowers the NJC to recommend to the Governor, from among the persons submitted by the State JSC, a candidate for appointment as Chief Judge.
Section 271(1) also provides that the appointment shall be made by the Governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.
The Attorney-General maintained that these provisions establish a constitutional sequence in which the State JSC identifies and advises on suitable candidates, the NJC considers the names submitted and recommends a candidate to the Governor, while the Governor exercises the appointing authority subject to legislative confirmation.
He argued that interpreting the NJC’s recommendation powers as extending to the selection of a candidate for the State Commission would undermine the constitutional responsibilities assigned to the latter.
“The NJC’s constitutional responsibility to recommend a candidate to the Governor does not confer on it the additional power to determine or dictate the candidate the State Judicial Service Commission must submit to it,” he maintained.
Addressing the NJC’s Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers, Obinatu acknowledged the Council’s authority to prescribe and enforce procedures governing judicial appointments.
However, he stressed that such guidelines must remain consistent with the Constitution and cannot confer powers beyond those expressly granted by the supreme law of the land.
ALSO READ: NJC suspends three judges for one year without pay
He maintained that the NJC’s responsibility to ensure compliance with appointment procedures should not be interpreted as overriding the independent constitutional functions of the Imo State JSC.
To support his position, the Attorney-General cited several judicial decisions which, according to him, reinforce the need for constitutional institutions to operate within their legally defined powers.
They include Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (2012) LPELR-15515(SC), Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission & Anor. v. Salisu & Ors. (2019) LPELR-47107(CA), and Bamisile v. National Judicial Council & Ors. (2012) LPELR-8381(CA).
Others are FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022) LPELR-58066(SC), NJC & Ors. v. Senlong & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4582(CA), and Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors. (2024) LPELR-62576(SC).
He said the decisions affirmed the principle that every constitutional institution must exercise its powers within the limits prescribed by law, irrespective of its institutional status.
Obinatu emphasised that the issue was not about institutional superiority but the need for both the NJC and the Imo State JSC to respect their respective constitutional mandates in the appointment of the state’s substantive Chief Judge.
He warned that any process that disregards the constitutional responsibilities of either institution could undermine the integrity of judicial appointments and public confidence in the judiciary.
The Attorney-General therefore called for the ongoing appointment process to be guided strictly by the provisions of the Constitution, particularly those safeguarding the independence of the State Judicial Service Commission and defining the NJC’s recommendation powers.
WATCH TOP VIDEOS FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE TV