The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has proposed reforms to remove the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) as the statutory Chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
It faulted the current composition of the Council, which is responsible for the discipline of erring judicial officers.
The association argued that having the CJN as head of the disciplinary body compromises its independence and objectivity.
It challenged the current system, which mandates that the Council be headed by the CJN, and also demanded a review of its composition.
It added: “The inherent flaws in the composition of the NJC impact negatively on its ability to prosecute judicial misconduct in a manner that inspires public confidence.”
The group proposed that the NJC be constituted as follows: six judicial officers appointed by the CJN; six lawyers nominated by the National Executive Council of the NBA, including the NBA President; and six non-lawyers appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, subject to Senate approval.
“The Chairmanship of these bodies should be rotated between the heads of the three constituent groups,” the NBA insisted.
Besides, the association recommended appointing court administrators to assume the administrative functions currently performed by the heads of court, including procurement, budgeting, court renovation, and the implementation of judicial appropriations.
It stated: “These are activities within court administration that have severally been identified by the anti-corruption bodies as areas prone to corrupt activities.
“This proposal for the creation of this office takes cognizance of the role of the Chief Registrars of courts who will under the proposed arrangements enable them (together with heads of courts) to concentrate solely on the business of adjudication especially case management without distraction.”
The recommendations were contained in proposals the NBA submitted at a national summit on Justice Sector reforms. The Chairman of the Joint Planning Committee of the summit, Dr. Babatunde Ajibade, SAN, had, at that time, told newsmen that the reform proposals were considered and approved in modified form.
“The general consensus reached by this panel was that the role of the NJC in discharging its responsibility for judicial appointments into the Superior Courts of Record required significant review.
“There was a concern expressed about the fact that the CJN, who is the chairman of the NJC is also the chairman of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, which is the body that initially reviews proposals or lists of candidates for appointment into judicial office.
“The members pointed out the seeming inconsistency between the CJN playing both those roles, as it would appear that he was then recommending candidates to himself being chairman of both bodies, and being the person who appoints a significant number of the members of both bodies other than those who are statutory members.
“There was a general consensus that there was a need to reconstitute or propose the reconstitution of these bodies, both the NJC and the FJSC,” Ajibade, SAN, stated.