Imo AG faults NJC directive on choice of chief judge
- Imo Attorney-General Paul Obinatu says the NJC cannot dictate who the state's Judicial Service Commission nominates for chief judge.
- He cited Section 202 of the Constitution, which shields the state commission from outside control.
- The dispute follows an NJC directive issued at its 112th meeting on November 3.
The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, has pushed back against a directive from the National Judicial Council (NJC) over who should become the state's substantive Chief Judge.
In a statement issued on Friday and made available to journalists in Abuja, Obinatu said the NJC has no power to choose the candidate that the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) must present to it.
The disagreement follows a directive the NJC issued at its 112th meeting on 3 November, according to the statement. The content of that directive was not disclosed.
What the law says
Obinatu anchored his argument on Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. That section, he said, bars any other authority or person from directing or controlling a state judicial service commission in the exercise of its functions.
He also pointed to Section 271(1) and the Third Schedule, which set out a sequence: the state JSC advises the NJC on suitable candidates, the NJC recommends one of those names to the governor, and the governor appoints with confirmation from the State House of Assembly.
According to him, the NJC's duty to put a name before the governor does not carry with it the right to decide which name the state commission sends up.
He acknowledged that the NJC can issue guidelines and procedural rules for judicial appointments. But he argued those rules cannot go beyond what the Constitution allows or be used to override the state commission's independent role.
Obinatu cited several court decisions he said support his position, including Elelu-Habeeb v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2012), Bamisile v. National Judicial Council (2012) and FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022).
He said the dispute is not about which body is more powerful, but about each institution staying within the limits the Constitution sets for it.
He warned that ignoring either institution's constitutional role could weaken public confidence in how judges are appointed.
What happens next
The statement did not say whether the NJC has responded or whether the appointment process has been paused. The sources gave no indication of when the matter will be resolved.
For now, the process to fill Imo's top judicial seat remains tied to how the two commissions resolve their disagreement over the Constitution.
