Access to Justice (A2Justice), a judiciary watchdog has accused President Muhamadu Buhari of ethnic bias in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
The group noted that while it took the President about 11 months to send the first list of justices, recommended to him by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to the Senate, for approval, it took him only two weeks to forward the second list comprising of ‘favoured names’ to the upper legislative chamber.
In the statement titled ‘Appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court: Buhari’s Antics Sets Alarm off on the Future of the Nigerian judiciary’ signed by Joseph Otteh, the Convener, and Deji Ajare, the Project Director, A2Justice said it realised that the President waited for the second list before sending the first, and noted in its letter to the Senate that the confirmation of the names recommended should be ‘according to their ranking of seniority at the Court of Appeal.’
The group stated that ‘antics speak also to blackmail; the President tells the Judiciary that if his favored names are not submitted for appointment, no other persons recommended to him by the NJC will be appointed into the Supreme Court. And the judiciary apparently got the message.’
Access to Justice identified names on the first list to include; Justices, Adamu Jauro, Emmanuel Agim, Samuel Oseji and Helen Ogunwumiju. While the second list had the names of Justices Lawal Garba, Addu Aboki, I. M. Saulawa and Tijjani Abubakar implying the ethnic bias of the President.
‘The impression all of this creates is that the President was set on manipulating how the Supreme Court is configured, politically and ethnically, now and for the near future; he wanted to determine how seniority amongst the justices of the Supreme Court is ordered as well as which justices of the court can be expected to succeed to the highest judicial office as Chief Justice of Nigeria.’
‘The Presidency has offered no explanations whatever for what is a huge and remarkable contrast in the pace with which it acted on the recommendations of the NJC with respect to both sets of nominations.’ The group maintained.
‘The conduct of the entire process leads to the conclusion that the Presidency had withheld from seeking the confirmation of, and making the appointments of the four justices, whose names were on the first set of recommendations from the NJC, simply because it was targeting the inclusion of further names for appointment to the Supreme Court – names that were not included in the first list.’
‘Furthermore, that the President was willing to wait out the occurrence of that event as well as ensure that its targets did not lose their comparable rankings with earlier nominated persons notwithstanding that the Supreme Court was almost collapsing with overbearing workloads due to its lean workforce.’
Read Also: Justice on Sail or for Sale?
‘The President has also created unpalatable public suspicion about his motives for delaying the Supreme Court appointments, and, in fact, some sections of the public have alleged there is a quid pro quo motive involved in it.’
‘The Presidency’s interference with appointments into the Supreme Court further undermines the integrity and independence of the court, and politicises membership of a court that ought to be a neutral, impartial, non-partisan and non-political institution.’
The group, however, expressed the concern that the President’s action would reduce the stature of the Supreme Court, ‘create suspicions about the independence of the Supreme Court justices and could very well kindle in-fighting and jostling within the court itself.’
(Peace Omenka)
