No Vacancy for Senior Advocates at S’Court

As the debate on whether to appoint Senior Advocates of Nigeria justices of the Supreme Court‎ rages on, a member of the Bar, Kayode Ajulo argues that it will be unfair to judges to make such appointments

The Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN), as the highest court in Nigeria and in its current form was shaped by the Supreme Court Act of 1990 and by Chapter VII of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

Under the extant laws, the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdictions, has the sole authority and jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Courts of Appeal, having appellate jurisdiction over all lower federal courts and highest state courts. Decisions rendered by the court are binding on all courts in Nigeria except the Supreme Court itself.

The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and such number of justices not more than 21, appointed by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, (NJC) and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Justices of the Supreme Court must be qualified to practise law in Nigeria, and must have been so qualified for a period not less than fifteen years. Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria have a mandatory retirement age of 70 years.

In the recent past, particularly since the advent of democratic rule, appointments into the highest bench in Nigeria have by convention been restricted to serving judges from the Courts  of Appeal across the federation.

Under the military, however, a couple of appointments to the Supreme Court were made directly from the Bar, the first being Justice Teslim Elias, an academic who was appointed Chief Justice of Nigeria by Gen. Yakubu Gowon in 1972, having been Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice at various times since 1960.

Another lawyer so appointed was Justice Augustine Nnamani (SAN), who was nominated by Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo to the Supreme Court in 1979 from his position as the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. He was at the Supreme Court for 11 years.

Recently, however, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice  Walter Onnoghen had asked the Bar to  nominate lawyers for appointment as Supreme Court Justices. The NBA has nominated nine lawyers, among whom are six Senior Advocates of Nigeria.

This request has generated mooted reactions, sprouted covert ripples with members of the learned profession and ideologues outside its tent lending their voices and comparing stances on the contentious issue. The ranks of the trade,  both Bar and Bench have gauged the decision and given points of the law and viewpoints as practitioners and stakeholders.

I agree  with Wale Babalakin, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and other senior jurists that such a decision by the CJN with utmost respect to the incumbent is not without flaws and is indeed fraught with danger.

Other thinkers outside the profession similarly faulted the idea on the proposed appointment of SANs and other lawyers to the Supreme Court Bench. Part of the criticisms is that this decision is the granting of that apogee of privilege to the NBA, a seemingly divided house, who in all likelihood will in turn serve distinctions to the undeserving on a golden platter. 

As a matter of fact, Senior Advocates who are found fit for the specific positions can be appointed to the lower courts for and can therefrom be elevated as time and performance advance. The positions at the Supreme Court should be, undebatably, for very exceptional people.  The legal system should be configured in a manner that affords only distinguished lawyers to aspire to such height of judicial appointments, as doing this will ensure sanity and justice. 

To surreptitiously make the NBA a middleman is to do a disservice to the noble quest of finding God-like men who would be vested with the power to play God in the affairs of men.

There is no gain saying the fact that NBA as it were,  is politicised and polarised,  a situation that has given birth to perennial wrangling and disharmony within its ranks. For a professional tent with  a history of discordant tunes, it cannot,  expectedly,  be healthy to expect it to bring forth fine fruits that are free from shades of injections.  

There is no denying the truism that such free appointments, if made, inherently  carries the potentiality of enthroning demagoguery.  I agree with analysts who hold the standpoint that lawyers who are appointed straight to the Supreme Court should be those with extra ordinary accomplishments, and who are of exceptional intellect. 

Appointments of this extremely pivotal essence should not be made an easy take to tepid advocates because it would kill the morale  of brilliant judges at the lower bench. Conversely, it is disingenuous that the judges who have been made to give up their right to practice advocacy after leaving office should be made to compete for the high offices of their calling with those who have attained the peak of their careers in the same profession from which they have been perpetually excluded by virtue of their appointments to the Bench.

Besides, the fact that one is a good lawyer does not automatically mean that one will be exceptional when appointed into such office as  a Supreme Court Judge. 

While it is true that there have been appointments from the Bar to the highest court in the land and those appointees have proven to be legal geniuses, the fact that there were two success stories does not provide a platform wide enough for the current CJN to stand upon to seek to make a convention of an anomaly.

As noted, I believe that the caliber of men who should make claim to a direct appointment to the Supreme Court of any country should be men with the rarest of fibre, not a case of awarding positions which has a high prospect to demotivate hard work and discourage diligence. There should be thorough professional performances and a testimonial of talents to merit a loftier rung. It should not be a gift to long runners when distinction is palpably lacking. 

While some might argue that those gifted with the guts of the trade, those with exceptional skills be recommended for a few appointments to the Courts of Appeal where, upon deeds of distinctions, they may be given an accelerated promotion to the Supreme Court, I am of the view that a person who has distinguished himself by attaining the rank of Senior Advocate should maintain his enviable course. He should lend himself as a friend of the court and a statesman in the legal profession, a shining light  in the Temple of Justice.

What one cannot deny in the perspectives so far rendered is the fact that they swept up fundamental points that are of dire import on the learned profession. Positions of such pivotal height in the business of justice administration should be earned by distinctions and stellar accomplishments, and should not be served to the laps of the lackeys of individuals who are privileged to call the shots.