Rivers State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Prof
\nZacchaeus Adangor, says neither the National Judicial Council (NJC) nor
\nthe Governor of a State\u00a0 is obligated to recommend or appoint the most
\nsenior Judge of the High Court as substantive Chief Judge of a State.<\/p>\n
Adangor, who is also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),\u00a0 made this
\nassertion while reacting to a statement credited to a group, Concerned
\nLawyers in Rivers State led by\u00a0 Secretary of the Nigerian Bar
\nAssociation, Port Harcourt branch, John Owubokiri, impugning the
\nrecommendation of Justice Simeon C. Amadi by the NJC to the Governor of
\nRivers State\u00a0 for appointment as substantive Chief Judge of the State
\nupon the retirement of the current Chief Judge.<\/p>\n
He argued that it was wrong for the Concerned Lawyers to rely on what
\nthey seemed “Judicial tradition” to demand that the\u00a0 NJC should have
\nrecommended Justice Joy Akpughunum to the Governor of Rivers State as
\nthe next substantive Chief Judge based on seniority from amongst the
\nserving Judges on the High Court Bench of Rivers State.<\/p>\n
The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, explained that his
\nunderstanding of the law is that a rule of “judicial tradition” if one
\nreally exists, is only relevant where there is no applicable rule of
\nsubstantive law governing the particular issue in question. According to
\nhim, the rule of judicial tradition cannot be relied upon to subvert or
\nsupplant an applicable rule of substantive law on any issue.<\/p>\n
Citing Section 271(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution as
\namended, he said there are two separate schemes governing the
\nappointment of Chief Judge of a State.<\/p>\n
“It is clear from a literal construction of the said provisions that
\nunder Section 271(1) of the Constitution, read together with
\nSub-Sections (2) and (3) thereof, there is no prescription that the
\nGovernor shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court as the
\nsubstantive Chief Judge of the State based on the recommendation of the
\nNJC.<\/p>\n
“In order words, neither the NJC not the Governor is enjoined or
\nobligated to recommend and or appoint the most senior Judge of the High
\nCourt as the substantive Chief Judge of the State. This leaves the NJC
\nwith discretionary power to recommend any Judge of the High Court of the
\nState that is considered most suitable, to the Governor, for appointment
\nas the substantive Chief Judge of the State.”<\/p>\n
He acknowledged that with respect to the appointment of an acting Chief
\nJudge of the State under Section 271(4), the Constitution explicitly
\nstates that the Governor shall appoint the ” most senior Judge of the
\nHigh Court”\u00a0 to perform the functions of that office.<\/p>\n
” It is clear from the foregoing that the most senior Judge of the High
\nCourt of the State is entitled to be appointed by the Governor as the
\nActing Chief Judge but there is no such entitlement to the office of
\nsubstantive Chief Judge of the State. To put it plainly, seniority of
\nthe judges on the High Court Bench is relevant only where the
\nappointment of the Chief Judge of the State is in acting capacity.
\nSeniority, has no relevance whatsoever where the appointment of the
\nChief Judge of the State is in a substantive capacity.”<\/p>\n
Adangor, maintained that if\u00a0 the framers of the 1999 Constitution had
\nintended to make seniority a requirement for the appointment of the
\nChief Judge of the state in substantive capacity, they would have stated
\nso expressly.<\/p>\n
According to him, a cardinal rule of interpretation of plain and
\nunambiguous provisions of statutes including Section 271 of the
\nConstitution as amended , is that where the words of a statute are plain
\nand unambiguous, the court cannot in the exercise of its interpretative
\njurisdiction add or subtract from the provisions in order to make them
\nconform to the judge’s own view of sound social policy.<\/p>\n
“It is submitted that on the state of the law, the recommendation of
\nHon. Justice Simeon C. Amadi, J, by the NJC to the Governor of Rivers
\nState for appointment as Chief Judge of Rivers State cannot be faulted.”<\/p>\n
The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice,\u00a0 advised the group to
\nseek constitutional amendments of Section 271(1) of the 1999
\nconstitution , instead of resorting to sentiments on a purely
\nconstitutional matter.<\/p>\n
“For the avoidance of doubt, sentiments have no role in our
\nconstitutional jurisprudence.”<\/p>\n
Rivers State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Prof Zacchaeus Adangor, says neither the National Judicial Council (NJC) nor the Governor of a State\u00a0 is obligated to recommend or appoint…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":79349,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-other-news"],"yoast_head":"\n