NJC, Governors Not Obligated To Recommend Most Senior As Chief Judge — Rivers AG, Prof. Adangor, SAN

Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Rivers State,
Prof. Zacchaeus Adangor, SAN, has insisted that neither the
National Judicial Council (NJC) nor the Governor of a state was
obligated to recommend or appoint the most senior Judge of the High
Court as substantive Chief Judge of a state.

Adangor, made this assertion while reacting to a statement
credited to a group, Concerned Lawyers in Rivers State led by
Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, Port Harcourt branch,
John Owubokiri, impugning the recommendation of Justice Simeon C.
Amadi by the NJC to the Governor of Rivers State for appointment as
substantive Chief Judge of the state upon the retirement of the
current Chief Judge.

He argued that it was wrong for the Concerned Lawyers to rely on
what they termed “Judicial tradition” to demand that the NJC should
have recommended Justice Joy Akpughunum to the Governor of Rivers
State as the next substantive Chief Judge based on seniority from
amongst the serving Judges on the High Court Bench of Rivers
State.

According to a statement by the Special Assistant to the
Governor on Information, Mr. Kelvin Ebri, Adangor, explained that
his understanding of the law was that a rule of “judicial
tradition” if one really exists, was only relevant where there was
no applicable rule of substantive law governing the particular
issue in question, adding that the rule of judicial tradition could
not be relied upon to subvert or supplant an applicable rule of
substantive law on any issue.

Citing Section 271(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution
as amended, he said there were two separate schemes governing the
appointment of Chief Judge of a State.

“It is clear from a literal construction of the said provisions
that under Section 271(1) of the Constitution, read together with
Sub-Sections (2) and (3) thereof, there is no prescription that the
Governor shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court as
the substantive Chief Judge of the State based on the
recommendation of the NJC.

“In other words, neither the NJC not the Governor is enjoined or
obligated to recommend and or appoint the most senior Judge of the
High Court as the substantive Chief Judge of the State. This leaves
the NJC with discretionary power to recommend any Judge of the High
Court of the State that is considered most suitable, to the
Governor, for appointment as the substantive Chief Judge of the
State,” he submitted.

He acknowledged that with respect to the appointment of an
acting Chief Judge of the State under Section 271(4), the
Constitution explicitly states that the Governor shall appoint the
“ most senior Judge of the High Court” to perform the functions of
that office.

“ It is clear from the foregoing that the most senior Judge of
the High Court of the State is entitled to be appointed by the
Governor as the Acting Chief Judge but there is no such entitlement
to the office of substantive Chief Judge of the State. To put it
plainly, seniority of the judges on the High Court Bench is
relevant only where the appointment of the Chief Judge of the State
is in acting capacity. Seniority, has no relevance whatsoever where
the appointment of the Chief Judge of the State is in a substantive
capacity.”

Adangor, maintained that if the framers of the 1999 Constitution
had intended to make seniority a requirement for the appointment of
the Chief Judge of the state in substantive capacity, they would
have stated so expressly.

According to him, a cardinal rule of interpretation of plain and
unambiguous provisions of statutes including Section 271 of the
Constitution as amended , is that where the words of a statute are
plain and unambiguous, the court cannot in the exercise of its
interpretative jurisdiction add or subtract from the provisions in
order to make them conform to the judge’s own view of sound social
policy.

“It is submitted that on the state of the law, the
recommendation of Hon. Justice Simeon C. Amadi, J, by the NJC to
the Governor of Rivers State for appointment as Chief Judge of
Rivers State cannot be faulted.”

The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, advised the
group to seek constitutional amendments of Section 271(1) of the
1999 constitution , instead of resorting to sentiments on a purely
constitutional matter.

“For the avoidance of doubt, sentiments have no role in our
constitutional jurisprudence,” he concluded.

Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Rivers State,
Prof. Zacchaeus Adangor, SAN, has insisted that neither the
National Judicial Council (NJC) nor the Governor of a state was
obligated to recommend or appoint the most senior Judge of the High
Court as substantive Chief Judge of a state.

Adangor, made this assertion while reacting to a statement
credited to a group, Concerned Lawyers in Rivers State led by
Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, Port Harcourt branch,
John Owubokiri, impugning the recommendation of Justice Simeon C.
Amadi by the NJC to the Governor of Rivers State for appointment as
substantive Chief Judge of the state upon the retirement of the
current Chief Judge.

He argued that it was wrong for the Concerned Lawyers to rely on
what they termed “Judicial tradition” to demand that the NJC should
have recommended Justice Joy Akpughunum to the Governor of Rivers
State as the next substantive Chief Judge based on seniority from
amongst the serving Judges on the High Court Bench of Rivers
State.

According to a statement by the Special Assistant to the
Governor on Information, Mr. Kelvin Ebri, Adangor, explained that
his understanding of the law was that a rule of “judicial
tradition” if one really exists, was only relevant where there was
no applicable rule of substantive law governing the particular
issue in question, adding that the rule of judicial tradition could
not be relied upon to subvert or supplant an applicable rule of
substantive law on any issue.

Citing Section 271(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution
as amended, he said there were two separate schemes governing the
appointment of Chief Judge of a State.

“It is clear from a literal construction of the said provisions
that under Section 271(1) of the Constitution, read together with
Sub-Sections (2) and (3) thereof, there is no prescription that the
Governor shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court as
the substantive Chief Judge of the State based on the
recommendation of the NJC.

“In other words, neither the NJC not the Governor is enjoined or
obligated to recommend and or appoint the most senior Judge of the
High Court as the substantive Chief Judge of the State. This leaves
the NJC with discretionary power to recommend any Judge of the High
Court of the State that is considered most suitable, to the
Governor, for appointment as the substantive Chief Judge of the
State,” he submitted.

He acknowledged that with respect to the appointment of an
acting Chief Judge of the State under Section 271(4), the
Constitution explicitly states that the Governor shall appoint the
“ most senior Judge of the High Court” to perform the functions of
that office.

“ It is clear from the foregoing that the most senior Judge of
the High Court of the State is entitled to be appointed by the
Governor as the Acting Chief Judge but there is no such entitlement
to the office of substantive Chief Judge of the State. To put it
plainly, seniority of the judges on the High Court Bench is
relevant only where the appointment of the Chief Judge of the State
is in acting capacity. Seniority, has no relevance whatsoever where
the appointment of the Chief Judge of the State is in a substantive
capacity.”

Adangor, maintained that if the framers of the 1999 Constitution
had intended to make seniority a requirement for the appointment of
the Chief Judge of the state in substantive capacity, they would
have stated so expressly.

According to him, a cardinal rule of interpretation of plain and
unambiguous provisions of statutes including Section 271 of the
Constitution as amended , is that where the words of a statute are
plain and unambiguous, the court cannot in the exercise of its
interpretative jurisdiction add or subtract from the provisions in
order to make them conform to the judge’s own view of sound social
policy.

“It is submitted that on the state of the law, the
recommendation of Hon. Justice Simeon C. Amadi, J, by the NJC to
the Governor of Rivers State for appointment as Chief Judge of
Rivers State cannot be faulted.”

The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, advised the
group to seek constitutional amendments of Section 271(1) of the
1999 constitution , instead of resorting to sentiments on a purely
constitutional matter.

“For the avoidance of doubt, sentiments have no role in our
constitutional jurisprudence,” he concluded.