Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja has faulted the decision by President Muhammadu Buhari to forward names of 11 lawyers nominated for appointment as judges of the High Court of The Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Blueprint reports that the President had on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) forwarded to the Senate for screening and confirmation in July, names of the 11 lawyers.
The appointees are: Abubakar Useni Musa, Edward Okpe, B. Abubakar, M. Francis, Jude Nwabueze, Josephine Enobi, Christopher Opeyemi, Mohammed Idris, Hassan Maryam Aliyu, Fashola Akeem Adebowale and Hamza Muazu.
But in a judgment on Wednesday, Justice Ekwo held that President Buhari acted in contravention of the provision of Section 256 (2) of the Constitution when he forwarded the recommended names.
According to the Judge, the only instance where the President can forward NJC’s recommendation to the Senate, in respect of a High Court judge’s appointment, is when it relates to the appointment of a head of court, like the Chief Judge.
But at Wednesday proceedings, the judge nevertheless held that even though the President contravened the provision of Section 256(2) of the Constitution, it did not affect the swearing-in of the judges.
Meanwhile, while filing the suit, an Abuja-based lawyer, Oladimeji Ekengba, had, on July 15, approached the court in an exparte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/733/2020and filed a suit over what he called alleged breach of Section 256 (2) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999, in the appointment of judges of the FCT High Court.
Other respondents in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Clerk of the Senate, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the National Judicial Council (NJC).
In the suit, the lawyer urged the court to make an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from screening, confirming and/or swearing in the names of the persons as judges of the FCT High Court pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
In the judgment, Ekwo held that President Buhari acted in contravention of the provision of Section 256(2) of the Constitution.
The judge said the only instance where the president could forward NJC’s recommendation to the Senate, in respect of a High Court judge’s appointment, was when it related to the appointment of a head of court, like the chief judge.
“The issue is straightforward. It is whether the first defendant (the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) acted in compliance with the provision of Section 256(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to have sent the names of the 11 persons recommended for appointment as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to the Senate for confirmation.
“Looking at the provision of Section 256(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), I find that there is no power or authority, express or implied, given to the first defendant (the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) to send names of persons recommended to him for appointment as judges to the Senate for screening.
“All that the first defendant needed to do was to send the names of the appointees to the seventh defendant (the NJC).
“The requirement for confirmation by the Senate would only have been necessary and constitutional if the seventh defendant recommended a person to the first defendant for appointment as the chief judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as provided for in Section 256(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“To state it clearly, the act of the first defendant, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria), sending the names of the 11 persons appointed by him to the Senate for confirmation was done in contravention of the provision of Section 256(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” he ruled.
Meanwhile, two reliefs was also granted the plantiff by Justice Ekwo, which include a declaration that, by the provision of Section 256(2) of the Constitution, the President “cannot abdicate his duties and responsibilities to the Senate for appointment of persons as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.”
The judge equally declared that the names of the individuals nominated by the NJC for appointment as judges of the High Court of the FCT cannot be subjected to the screening and confirmation and that the forwarding of the names to the Senate was contrary to and in breach of Section 256(2) of the Constitution.
The Judge held further; “As can be seen, this judgment affects only the act of forwarding the names of the appointees to the Senate, which was done in contravention of the provision of Section 256(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It does not affect the swearing in of the appointees,”
