Connect with us

News

Lawyers Nomination For Supreme Court Sparks Controversy

Published

on

To qualify for appointment to the bench of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the fellow must be a legal practitioner of not less than 15 years. The same applies to whoever is to be appointed as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
Section 231 subsection (3) of the 1999 Constitution as amended distinctly states: “A person shall not be qualified to hold the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria or of a Justice of the Supreme Court, unless he is qualified to practise as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for a period of not less than fifteen years.”
The above provision opened up the window for any legal practitioner who has practised for not less than 15 years to be appointed as a Justice of the apex court. And that is exactly what the proponents of the argument for the appointment of members of the Bar straight into the Supreme Court capitalised on, in supporting their position.
Just recently, their crusade got the ears of the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen who wrote to the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), requesting that it nominates eligible  members of the Bar for consideration into the apex court bench. He also gave them a short notice within which to comply with the notice.
The NBA in response, quickly forwarded names of nine eligible candidates to the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chairman Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Justice Onnoghen, for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court.
According to the NBA, the short-listing followed a rigorous selection process done by a  committee chaired by the president of the NBA, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), with eight other eminent lawyers as members.
Among the candidates nominated were former President of the NBA, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Anthony Ikemefuna Idigbe (SAN), Yunus Ustas Usman (SAN), Babatunde Fagbohunlu (SAN), Miannaya Aja Essien (SAN), Awa Uma Kalu (SAN), Professor Awalu Hamish Yadudu, Tajudeen Oladoja and Ayuba Giwa.
The above-mentioned applicants were short-listed from a total of 89 expressions of interest that were scrutinised.But this action has already open up the hornets nest. A group of lawyers led by the octogenarian activist, Pa Tunji Gomez have in protest written to the acting CJN, expressing  their disapproval of the nominations and asking for its cancellation for not following due process.

In the letter, dated February 15 and addressed to the acting CJN, the lawyer said members of the Lagos NBA present at their meeting held on February 13, ‘overwhelmingly opposed the said nomination of lawyers for appointment as Supreme Court Justices.’

According to him, their grouse is that ‘due process’ was not followed in the nomination. They also complained that the procedure used was arbitrary and contrary to established procedure in appointing judges.

“The members present disapprove of the undue haste with which the nomination and recommendation was done. The period of three days given to interested lawyers to indicate their interest in the Supreme Court posts is to say the least, a farce and an unusual and unwarranted haste which to them, portray a predetermined agenda, because the procedure of appointing a High Court judge takes weeks, with full consultation of judges and the Bar for their input in the exercise. How is it then that the nomination of lawyers to the Supreme Court, the apex court in the land was limited to three days,” he queried.

He also argued that the appointment raised vital fundamentally issues affecting the profession and the judiciary. He asked whether such action would not indirectly declare justices of the appeal court as unfit or unknowledgeable enough to be elevated to the apex court?

“This is an unfair, demeaning and unjustifiable treatment of appeal court justices, some of whom have spent decades in the judiciary from high court to the appeal court only to be told that a lawyer who has not held any judicial post is preferable. This is unfair, disheartening and a slur on the efficiency of the court of appeal,” he stated, adding that it might affect their dedication, morale and commitment as there is no guarantee of their promotion to the Supreme Court since lawyers can be appointed from the Bar.

The Bar leader argued that there have only been two of such appointments since independence and that it happened under the military rule as exceptions. To now make it a rule that lawyers should be appointed straight to the Supreme Court, he said, is dangerous to the profession and the judiciary.

“It will create the wrong impression which is inimical to the interest of the profession that any SAN is better than a High Court judge and more knowledgeable, as a judge of the High Court cannot be automatically appointed to the Supreme Court, whereas a SAN can be so appointed if this nomination is allowed to become the order of the day,” he stressed.

Notwithstanding his position and that of his group, some eminent Nigerian lawyers have continued to praise the nomination, saying such is a welcomed development.

The senior lawyers whose views were sought by The Guardian said the development would improve scholarship, legal reasoning and judgments at the apex court and ultimately Nigerian judiciary, adding that the blend of regular Justices with those from the Bar would enrich adjudication at the apex level.

Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), said there’s nothing wrong in the appointment, adding that in Britain, only those who are Queen’s Counsel (QC), an equivalent of SAN are appointed into the high courts.
“Personally, I do not see anything wrong with appointing a practising lawyer into the Supreme Court of this country; there is nothing wrong with it at all. The practice in England is that only Queens Counsel that are appointed as even judges. It is in this country that members of the lower bench like magistrates and so on become judges.
“The reason a seasoned practising lawyer is a better judge is because he has seen it all. He has interacted with the clients and the courts and he knows the courts than a lawyer who left the law school and is appointment a junior magistrate and rises from that position up to the Supreme Court.

“There is no time that such a fellow has interacted with clients as a litigation lawyer. It is the experience and weight of the submissions of a lawyer that makes a judge to write a beautiful judgment. Therefore, if you appoint sound lawyers into the bench, they will always turn out better judges. I have always advocated that we should copy what they are doing in England. Now that they have listened, it’s all well and good,” he stated.

Constitutional lawyer, Sebastine Hon (SAN) said its a good development. “The constitution has provided the minimum qualification for appointment into the Supreme Court bench. Once anybody attains 15 years in active legal practice, together with other requirements, he qualifies. The new hierarchy of the Supreme Court is trying to comply with the provisions of the constitution.
“The appointments will definitely bring a fine blend between establishment justices and the private practitioners who are coming from outside. It will better the cause of justice in my own estimation,” he said.

Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) said it is the right step in the right direction. According to him, the judiciary has not had it so in a long while after the exit of late Justice Teslim Elias and Augustine Nnamani who were appointed straight from the Bar. “I believe that if their nomination is confirmed and they are appointed into the Supreme Court bench, they will do wonders like the Elias and Nnamani’s of this world. I welcome it wholeheartedly,” he declared.

Similarly, Ilorin based lawyer, Yusuf Ali (SAN) described it as a welcomed development. “It is always good to inject new ideas and perspectives to issues. We are applauding it because it is good for the judiciary and our country in general. Their presence will enrich the apex court, “ he said, adding that because those nominated are men of upright character, they would recuse themselves whenever there are clash of interests without being told.

Continue Reading

City Crime

Ministry Raises Concern Over Rising Teenage Pregnancies, Begins Adolescent Sensitisation Campaign

Published

on

The Department of Public Health in the Rivers State Ministry of Health has raised concern over the increasing cases of teenage pregnancies in society as it intensifies efforts to educate adolescents across the state.
Programme Manager for Adolescent Health and Development in the department, Mrs. Tammy Briggs, expressed the concern during a sensitisation programme held at Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State.
Briggs explained that the campaign was designed to educate adolescents on the dangers of teenage pregnancy and other health-related issues affecting young people.
According to her, teenage pregnancy is currently on the rise, making it necessary for the ministry to step up awareness programmes among students.
“This is something that is on the rise for now. We have observed that there are many cases of teenage pregnancies, so we are here to sensitise them on ways to prevent it entirely,” she said.
She disclosed that the sensitisation campaign is being carried out in selected schools across four local government areas of the state, namely Obio/Akpor Local Government Area, Port Harcourt City Local Government Area, Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area and Eleme Local Government Area.
Briggs noted that the programme focuses on several key issues affecting adolescents, including sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, emotional health and proper nutrition.
She added that the outreach programme also featured tuberculosis screening for students as well as the distribution of sanitary pads and mathematical sets to support their health and academic development.
The programme manager commended the management of Government Girls Secondary School Rumueme for their cooperation and support in hosting the sensitisation exercise. She also advised the students to avoid behaviours that could jeopardise their future.
Speaking during the session, Dr. Nwadike Chinonso urged the students to make informed decisions about their lives and remain focused on their education.
He cautioned them against engaging in early sexual activities, stressing that abstinence remains one of the most effective ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies.
Some of the students who participated in the programme expressed appreciation to the team for the awareness campaign and pledged to apply the knowledge gained to make responsible life choices.

Continue Reading

City Crime

Extortion, Contraband Scandal Erupts At Kwale Custodial Centre

Published

on

Disturbing allegations of extortion, intimidation and the smuggling of prohibited items have unsettled the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre (MSCC) in Delta State, prompting calls for urgent intervention by the national authorities of the Nigeria Correctional Service amid fears of potential security breaches within the facility.
The development was disclosed by a senior officer at the Delta State custodial facility, who expressed concern over what was described as entrenched irregularities capable of undermining discipline and operational standards at the centre.
According to the source, detailed findings compiled between December 2025 and January 2026 highlighted patterns of misconduct and warned of possible security consequences should the allegations remain unchecked.
At the centre of the claims is a powerful corrections official serving as Officer in Charge of the Kwale facility, accused of presiding over persistent financial extortion, high-handedness and the victimisation of inmates under his supervision.
The document further indicated that the alleged practices may have originated during the tenure of a former General Provost, reportedly with the collaboration of another senior custodial official within the system.
Intelligence details suggested that inmates were allegedly compelled to contribute funds for projects and items considered outside the statutory framework of inmate welfare, raising questions about compliance with established correctional guidelines.
Among the financial demands reportedly imposed were ¦ 300,000 for the repair of a Hilux vehicle, ¦ 600,000 for the purchase of a freezer and ¦ 750,000 for a generator allegedly designated for the Officer in Charge’s residence.
The report also alleged that inmates were required to make payments before being conveyed to court, while Awaiting Trial Persons in Cells One to Nine were directed to raise ¦ 30,000 per cell, with Convict Cells One to Three, including a designated VIP cell, similarly mandated to pay ¦ 30,000 monthly.
Observers noted that if substantiated, such practices would amount to grave breaches of professional ethics and custodial administration standards, eroding principles of fairness, transparency and inmate welfare within correctional institutions.
Beyond the financial allegations, the intelligence brief raised concerns over the purported possession of unauthorised communication devices, alleging that a serving General Provost had two Android phones while another influential inmate was also reportedly found with a mobile device.
The document further alleged that prohibited items, including alcoholic beverages, Indian hemp and other hard substances, may have been smuggled into the custodial yard under the guise of routine supervision duties, with security sources warning that the cumulative effect of extortion, intimidation and contraband trafficking has heightened tension within the facility.
In view of the gravity of the allegations, they called for an immediate and discreet investigation by the minister of Interior for immediate action to safe the life of inmates.
The administrative review of implicated officers, even as officials of the Nigeria Correctional Service had yet to issue an official statement, with stakeholders insisting that a transparent probe and decisive action are essential to restoring confidence and safeguarding institutional integrity at the Kwale Medium Security Custodial Centre.

Continue Reading

News

SERAP Sues FG Over Phone-Tapping Rules

Published

on

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit against the government of President Bola Tinubu at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice over the government’s alleged failure to withdraw “unlawful mass phone-tapping rules” known as the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019.

LICR 2019 is a regulation that authorises telecom licensees to install technology for security agencies to monitor communications, including voice, data, text, email, and browsing, for national security and to combat crime.

SERAP, in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, yesterday, said the suit followed allegations by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that the phone conversation of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, was intercepted.

El-Rufai reportedly claimed, “The NSA’s call was tapped. They do that to our calls too, and we heard him saying they should arrest me.”

In the suit numbered ECW/CCJ/APP/11/26, filed last Friday at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja, SERAP is seeking “a declaration that the failure of the government to withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations is unlawful and a violation of Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”

The organisation is also asking the court to declare that the government’s failure to withdraw the regulations “constitutes an official endorsement of unlawful mass phone-tapping rules, as the Regulations are patently unlawful, and violate the rule of law, democratic principles, and the right to privacy.”

It is further seeking “an order directing and compelling the Nigerian government to immediately withdraw the Interception of Communications Regulations, and to commence a legislative process to ensure that any interception regulations are in conformity with Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.”

The suit, filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare, Oluwakemi Oni, Valentina Adegoke and Maryam Mumuni, argued that “the Regulations establish a sweeping mass phone-tapping regime that violates Nigerians’ constitutionally and internationally guaranteed human rights, including to privacy and freedom of expression.”

“Where powers affecting fundamental human rights are exercised in secrecy and concentrated in political authorities without independent supervision, the risks of arbitrariness are substantial.

“Surveillance measures that lack strict necessity, proportionality and independent judicial oversight can easily be weaponised against political opponents, journalists, civil society actors and election observers,” it added.

SERAP also warned that the regulations raise concerns as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, noting that broad interception powers could be abused during politically sensitive periods.

“In an electoral climate, even the perception that private communications are being monitored can chill political organising, investigative reporting and voter mobilisation.

“Free and fair elections depend on confidential communications, protected journalistic sources and open democratic debate. Any misuse of intercepted data for intimidation, political advantage or disinformation would fundamentally undermine Nigerians’ right to political participation and electoral integrity.

“As 2027 approaches, interception powers must be narrowly defined, subject to prior independent judicial authorisation and backed by effective remedies. Without robust safeguards, these Regulations risk threatening privacy rights, freedom of expression and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process,” the suit stated.

SERAP maintained that any restriction on the right to privacy must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, arguing that the regulations fail to meet these requirements.

SERAP also cited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as stating that mass surveillance programmes based on indiscriminate and blanket collection of personal data are arbitrary and cannot satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

The group said the Nigerian government has a duty to adopt clear laws, safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms and accessible remedies to prevent abuse by state agencies and private actors, including telecommunications providers and technology companies.

According to SERAP, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) adopted the Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 while exercising its powers under Section 70 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

The organisation argued that Regulation 4 grants broad discretionary interception powers to the National Security Adviser and the State Security Services, with little clarity on the scope or limits of such authority.

SERAP also pointed to inconsistencies within the regulations, noting that while Regulation 4 and Regulation 12 restrict interception powers to the NSA and SSS, Regulation 23 expands the category of authorised agencies to include bodies such as the Nigeria Police Force, National Intelligence Agency, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, and any other agency the commission may designate.

The organisation said this ambiguity undermines legal certainty and creates the risk of arbitrary application and abuse.

It also criticised provisions allowing interception without a warrant in certain circumstances, arguing that such powers are overly broad and susceptible to misuse.

SERAP further expressed concern that the regulations do not require authorities to notify individuals who have been subjected to surveillance, which it said weakens the ability of citizens to challenge unlawful monitoring.

The organisation warned that requirements compelling telecommunications licensees to install interception equipment and disclose encryption keys could undermine cybersecurity and discourage privacy-enhancing technologies.

SERAP acknowledged the government’s responsibility to address national security and organised crime but argued that such measures must remain within constitutional and international human rights limits.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

 

Continue Reading

Trending