NICN Validates Abia JSC’s Authority in Groundbreaking Judgment on Judicial Appointments

The process of appointing new judges for the Abia State Judiciary has faced significant delays since 2022. The challenge lies in the recruitment process overseen by the Abia State Judicial Service Commission (“the Commission”), which, under the Nigerian Constitution, holds the authority to manage such appointments, subject to the approval of the National Judicial Council (NJC).

The controversy began during the 2022 appointment exercise for Abia State judges, which was plagued by allegations of corruption. This led to litigation in the Federal High Court, and several appeals are still pending at the Court of Appeal.

In response to these challenges, the Commission initiated another recruitment process in 2024. However, this 2024 exercise was met with opposition from participants of the 2022 exercise. These participants petitioned for the new exercise to be paused until the issues surrounding the 2022 process were fully resolved.

To address this impasse, the Attorney General of Abia State filed an Originating Summons on 29 February 2024 at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Owerri Division. The Attorney General sought clarity on the relevant laws, rules, and guidelines governing the appointment of judges in the state. The lawsuit named the Commission as the 1st Defendant, E. E. J. Agwulonu as the 2nd Defendant, Nkume Joy Ijeoma Oluchi (representing the 2022 shortlisted candidates) as the 3rd Defendant, and the NJC as the 4th Defendant.

Notably, the Attorney General did not sue himself despite being a member of the Commission, in accordance with paragraph 5(b), part II (C) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. Instead, the suit was filed in his capacity as the Chief Law Officer of the State.

The Court was asked to determine whether the Commission had the authority to call for expressions of interest and shortlist candidates for the appointment of judges, having received NJC approval, and whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had the right to interfere in this process. In a landmark ruling, the Court upheld the Commission’s power and concluded that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had no right to obstruct the Commission’s duties.

During the proceedings, the Court also addressed complex legal issues, including jurisdictional challenges. Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice N.C.S. Ogbuanya, carefully considered all arguments and delivered a well-reasoned 53-page judgment on 26 July 2024.

Below is a summary of the key points in the judgment, starting with the preliminary objections and moving to the substantive issues in the case.

Preliminary Objections

1. Whether the Commission can hire private counsel: The 2nd and 3rd Defendants argued that the Commission, as a state executive body, could not validly engage a private lawyer to represent it in court, claiming only the Attorney General could issue such a fiat. The Court dismissed this objection, stating that the Commission, as a constitutional entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, could instruct legal representation of its choice.

2. Whether the NICN has jurisdiction to hear the case: The 2nd and 3rd Defendants also contended that the NICN lacked jurisdiction over the matter, as it concerned the executive and administrative actions of the Commission in appointing judges, which they argued did not fall under the NICN’s jurisdiction over employment matters.

Justice Ogbuanya disagreed, clarifying that judicial appointments, while not political appointments, involve a competitive recruitment process and fall within the purview of employment policy. The Court explained that judicial officers are “workers in crown/statutory employment” and that the NICN has jurisdiction over all employment-related issues, including pre-employment matters.

3. Whether the suit disclosed a cause of action and whether the Attorney General had locus standi: The Defendants argued that the suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the Attorney General lacked standing to bring the case. The Court rejected this, noting that the situation surrounding the appointment of judges in Abia State was of public interest, and as the Chief Law Officer of the State, the Attorney General was best placed to address it.

4. Whether the Commission could respond to objections filed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants: The 2nd and 3rd Defendants challenged the Commission’s responses to their motions and objections, arguing that the Commission was not named as a respondent in the applications. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that in multi-party suits, all parties have the right to respond to motions served upon them, regardless of whether they are specifically named as respondents.

5. Whether the Originating Summons should be converted to pleadings: The 2nd and 3rd Defendants requested that the case be converted to pleadings due to alleged factual disputes. The Court denied this, stating that the matter involved the interpretation of constitutional provisions and NJC rules, which could be adequately addressed through affidavit evidence.

6. Whether the suit constituted an abuse of court process or should be stayed: The Defendants claimed the suit was an abuse of court process, as a similar case had been filed at the Federal High Court in Umuahia. Alternatively, they requested a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The Court found no merit in this argument, explaining that the pending appeals concerned issues from the 2022 exercise, while the current case focused on the 2024 recruitment process.

Conclusion

Justice Ogbuanya’s ruling affirms the Commission’s authority to manage judicial appointments in Abia State, advancing the scope of employment law in Nigeria. By navigating the complex interplay of constitutional law and judicial employment policies, this judgment sets a significant precedent for the handling of future judicial appointment disputes.

Download Judgment below:

Reference: StephenLegal