APPOINTMENT OF FIVE (5) JUDGES IN AKWA  IBOM STATE: AGES 40-45 YEARS A PANACEA TO THE ILLS OF S.291 OF 1999 CONSTITUTION. 

By ~ Meti M. Ukpeh, Esq. 

   Uyo-based Human Rights Lawyer

INTRODUCTION:

With insecurity plaguing the nation; with over 4,000 inmates in correctional facilities; with insufficient and poorly managed court facilities in the state;  and with the judiciary, particularly, the Judges overburdened with cases amist archaic long- handed  approach in court against modern stenographic measures, the eventual announcement of the  call for nomination of eligible candidates for appointment of Judges, via the official correspondence of the Hon. Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State to the NBA, Uyo Branch, on the 22nd January,2024.,came as a solace, succur and timeously. Be that as it may, the question that tickles the mind is: in the mist of sound, well-lettered and evidently intelligent jurists in the state over the years, why does the state not produce more judges in the federal courts? 

Whereas this work will not concentrate on the obvious legal requirements for the appointment of a judge inscribed in statute books: Constitution, Legal practitioners Act, NJC Rules, Rules of Professional Conduct, et Al., but on the ultimate need for the serious taking into concentration of the age of a legal practitioner who is nominated and/or appointed as the judge of the state

The glaring and practical situations of appointing persons who are already in their late 50s or early 60s are not thoughtful, apposite and worthwhile for the justice system. In Akwa Ibom State, one could quickly draw the statistics of federal court judges the state could produce with a flip of fingers, against other states and regions in the country. This is apparently because these judges are not appointed in time, hence could not grow on the job thereby hitting the rocks beneath the depth of S.291 of the Constitution. This avoidable danger could be summarized as follows:

1) Such appointee-cum-judge will not have the opportunity to grow in the profession---against being elevated to a judge of a National Industrial Court, Federal High Court, Court of Appeal, let alone the apex court, Supreme Court. The rationale is not far-fetched as the constitution has fixed the age of retirement, viz:

S.291. of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended in 2023: 

"Ss(1):  A judicial officer appointed to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal may retire when he attains the age of sixty-five years and he shall cease to hold office when he attains the age of seventy years. 

Ss(2): A judicial officer appointed to any other court, other than those specified in subsection (1) of this section may retire when he attains the age of sixty years and he shall cease to hold office when he attains the age of sixty-five years."

Put diffrently, a High Court Judge "MAY" retire at 60years, and/or

A High Court Judge "SHALL" retire at 65years. 

2) Most of such woud-be appointees (50s and 60s) become a product of political settlement than on merit. In a sheer attempt to circumvent the law,  they could possess and/or procure questionable particulars just to take benefits of qualification and retirement provided in the law. S.291(3) of the 199 CFRN reads: 

"(3) Any person who has held office as a judicial officer - (a) for a period of not less than fifteen years shall, if he retires at or after the age of sixty-five years in the case of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, a Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Court of Appeal or a Justice of the Court of Appeal or at or after the age of sixty years in any other case, be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to his last annual salary and all his allowances in addition to any other retirement benefits to which he may be entitled; (b) for a period of less than fifteen years shall, if he retires at or after the age of sixty-five years or sixty years, as the case may be, be entitled to pension for life at a rate as in paragraph (a) of this subsection pro rata the number of years he served as a judicial officer in relation to the period of fifteen years, and all his allowances in addition to other retirement benefits to which he may be entitled under his terms and conditions of service; and (c) in any case, shall be entitled to such pension and other retirement benefits as may be regulated by an Act of the National Assembly or by a law of a House of Assembly of a State. 

(4) Nothing in this section or elsewhere in this Constitution shall preclude the application of the provisions of any other law that provides for pensions, gratuities and other retirement benefits for persons in the public service of the Federation or a State."

3) Most of them may not withstand the pressure of the job owing to reasons of old age, which is very natural, accompanied with health issues and eventual death. These judges sit(on wooden seats) and preside over thirty(30) cases on the Cause List in a poorly ventilated court room till Four O'clock (4:pm) without adequate provision of electricity each day. The effect could only be imagined as the attendant health issues that would spring out of these systemic decay are safe not to meet the eye.

Consequently, it is my undaunted and unreserved firm position evidently worthy of recommendation that, recourse should be made, aside other obvious requirements, to the age of the nominee/would-be judge in the appointment of judges of Akwa Ibom State. The lone commendable rationale is not far-fetched as such nominee would have the maximum opportunity to ascend the judicial pedestal and strata, withstanding the whole pressure of the job and be spartanic in health.

The NBA, Uyo Branch, as a nominator of eight(8) candidates and as a promoter of the Rule of Law well inscribed on its motto, leveraging on its ever-existing superb relationship with the Bench, has a duty to punctuate this hitherto practice and set a precedence worthy of emulation. The Bar should not nominate someone as settlement, or based on affinity or favouritism not minding whether the person is above 50years, 60years and in worst cases, above 65years provided by the law for retirement. This will be a huge disservice to the appointees as they, themselves , will not have the much talked about opportunity to grow in the bench, and eventually, a disservice to the profession and the state. A trash to the waste-bin of history of this practice would be a commendable feat and a greater height attained in our judiciary, justice system, legal profession and the rule of law. 

The apex court, in its ruling in PRESIDENT FRN & ANOR v. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY & ORS (2022) LPELR-58516(SC), observed thus: 

"I have deemed it expedient to reiterate, that the Supreme Court has an onerous duty to jealously and courageously guard ...the sanctity (sacredness) of the rule of law and its inviolable independence. ...The Rule of Law in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or form the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals. See ALBERT VENN DICEY: LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION (1885) @ 202, 203. Arguably, the concept of justice has dramatically changed over the years. See the Federal Constitutions of 1960, 1963, 1979 and lately the extant 1999 Constitution as amended or altered. Under Section 17 of the 1999 Constitution, it is provided: 17. The state social order is founded on ideals of Freedom, Equality and Justice. (2) In furtherance of the social order- (a) every citizen shall have equality of right, obligations and opportunities before the law; .....  The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that- (a) all citizens without discrimination on any group whatsoever, have the opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunities to secure suitable employment; (b) conditions of work are just and humane, and that there are adequate facilities for leisure and for social, religious and cultural life: (c) the health, safety and welfare of all persons in employment are safeguarded and not endangered or abused; (d) there are adequate medical and health care facilities for all persons; ..... It is my considered view, that the Supreme Court has cherishingly not abdicated its fundamental duty of upholding and applying the supremacy of the directives of the Rule of Law. ...Per Oputa, JSC @ 647-648. Recall, exactly eight decades ago (in 1942), Lord Atkin had the audacity to state in the notorious case of LIVERSIDGE VS ANDERSON (1942) AC 206: In this country amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that judges are no respecter of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on the liberty by the Executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.....the judiciary cannot shirk its sacred responsibility to the nation to maintain the rule of law. It is both in the interest of the government and all persons in Nigeria. The law should be even handed between the government and citizens. Per Obaseki, JSC @ 638." Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, JSC (Pp 111 - 117 Paras C - A).

Thus, legal practitioners must individually and collectively exile this primitive practice for the betterment of the noble profession, especially in Akwa Ibom State. One must have self-assessment, paramountly on age, before embarking on the quest to become a judge. It is not a means to an end, but a sacred, solemn and noble duty worthy of sanctity and sanity. One must not just see himself in the light of Sections 2 and 24 of the LPA., gunning to be a judge, but must reflect and integrate the dignified ethical duties boldly engraved in Rules 1,14,15,16 and 30 of the RPC.