Legitimate Confines of Powers of the National Judicial Council in Appointment of Substantive Chief Judges for States in Nigeria: Gombe State as a Case Study

Abstract

Since Nigeria`s return to democratic rule in 1999, there has been persistent face-off between the National Judicial Council (NJC) and State Governors in Nigeria over appointment of substantive Chief Judges (CJ’s) for States in Nigeria. While the NJC appears to prefer that the most senior judge in each State State be appointed the substantive CJ on each occasion, the State Governors insist that their appointing powers under the Constitution are discretionary. This standoff which on each occasion polarizes stakeholders, usually leads to tension within and outside the legal profession. In 2014, a face-off between the NJC and the Rivers State Governor in this respect almost led to a constitutional breakdown in the State. Then there was the case of Cross River State in 2020-2021, among others, the most recent being in Gombe State where the NJC in November 2020 rejected the list of names sent to it by the Gombe State Judicial Service Commission on grounds that the list did not contain the name of the most senior judge in the State. This paper is the second part of a two-winged analysis of all issues surrounding this seemingly unending conflict, the aim of the authors being to expose the actual position of law on the subject and to recommend solutions founded on rule of law, realism and democratic constitutionalism. first part titled, The Convention-Constitution Standoff: Resolving the Most-Senior-Judge Conundrum in Appointment of Substantive Chief Judges for States in Nigeria, is devoted to a discussion of the best way out of this intractable conflict between Conventionalism and the Constitutionalism while the present part focuses on delineating the exact scope and boundaries of lawful powers of the JC in the entire process. Acknowledging NJC’s powers to reject a list on deserving occasions, and taking Gombe State as a case study, this paper examines some salient questions: is the NJC under an obligation to offer reasons for rejecting such a list? Can the validity of NJC`s rejection of any such list be impaired by the legality or otherwise of the reasons so offered? paper thus offers clarifications and recommendations with a view to encouraging all stakeholders to keep within the legitimate confines of their respective powers in order to avoid or minimize tensions, interruptions and distractions.