Court of Appeal president: Who the cap fits

By the time such uninformed comments are publicized in the media they take the form of lies which are said to gain credence from repeated mention. Without prejudice to the right to say virtually anything granted by the constitution, it is necessary to issue points of correction for the record and also to interrupt the […]

By the time such uninformed comments are publicized in the media they take the form of lies which are said to gain credence from repeated mention. Without prejudice to the right to say virtually anything granted by the constitution, it is necessary to issue points of correction for the record and also to interrupt the misinformation before it assumes virtual veracity.
A case in point is the orchestrated controversy surrounding the appointment of a substantive President of the Court of Appeal as a result of which all manner of sentiments and suppositions have beclouded the salient facts of the matter. Ordinarily, discussions on judicial issues are not an all talkers affair because of the awe and respect commanded by the judiciary by virtue of its status and role as the institution of the checks and balance principle in the constitution and the just arbiter. But these days even the sanctity of matters before courts or sub-judice have been violated with impunity in the media in utter disregard for the ethics of the profession and press law which specifically prohibits such contempt of court.
Perhaps it was the unfortunate episode which enveloped the tenure of Justice Ayo Salami as the President of the Court of Appeal with partisan political polemics that cast a shadow of controversy and contempt on issues of appointment and discipline in the judiciary which were never before on the agenda of public discourse. Nevertheless, the abiding principles governing the civil service in general and the judiciary in particular as enshrined in their relevant statutes and regulations cannot be wished away or otherwise revised  on the altar of freedom of expression, especially when such expressions are uninformed and politically motivated.
It is necessary to point out that the futile attempts to redefine the relevance of seniority in service as the overriding criterion in selecting a suitable judge for appointment as President of the Court of Appeal should be condemned outright because they constitute a deliberate distortion of the extant policy for ulterior motives. As everyone knows, if there is anything as a so-called seniority tradition in appointment of judges in Nigeria, it only applies to consideration for making acting appointments, not substantive appointments like President of the Court of Appeal. The issue of seniority per se cannot possibly extend beyond acting appointments because for substantive appointments there are several other qualifying factors that must be brought to bear on the selection process.
By definition an acting appointment is a temporary holding assignment made in the interim period of absence of the substantive appointee. In most cases such acting appointments lapse within a short period before the appointee resumes duty at his desk. This is the scenario that informed the resort to seniority in selection of an acting appointee for the simple reason of the ad-hoc nature of the tenure. Since it is not a substantive appointment by which the appointee will be assuming full schedule of responsibility for the office for a fixed tenure, the next most senior person steps in pending the resumption of the substantive officer. With this background, it should be obvious that the qualifying factor(s) for a substantive appointment cannot be the same as for an acting appointment.
However, in the case of appointment as President of the Court of Appeal which is a substantive appointment into a high position of responsibility over the Court of Appeal in its entirety, due cognisance was given to the onerous nature of the office by placing it under the prerogative of the President who can so appoint a person of his considered choice regardless of such an appointee’s standing in the hierarchy of the court’s leadership. This also informed the imperative of widening the scope of qualifying factors beyond mere seniority in order to assess the candidates on qualities that are more germane to suitable predisposition for the office and functions of the President of the Court of Appeal. Beyond seniority, there are a number of relevant qualifications such as academic, career performance and competence, physical and mental capacity, profile and leadership potential, among others, which are evidently predisposing factors in selecting suitable judges for the President’s final endorsement. This is the true tradition of qualitative appointments to substantive offices.
The recourse to contrived controversy through the public media to attempt to infuse sentiments, falsehood and other manipulative manoeuvres into such a credible and transparent process, is therefore patently unpatriotic and mischievous. It constitutes a disservice to the quest for qualitative leadership in the Nigerian judiciary, as a motivation for the much sought after speedy dispensation of justice without fear or favour throughout the nation’s judicial structures. It is doubtful if those pushing the bogey of a bogus tradition of seniority as the overriding factor in selecting and appointing the next President of the Court of Appeal have any inkling of the rules and regulations as explained here. It is even more doubtful that they are sincere in advocating the elevation of age above academic, career performance and competence, physical and mental capacity, profile and leadership potential in terms of qualification for appointment of President of the Court of Appeal. Whatever their motives, they should be left in no doubt that the nation’s second highest court can only be headed by the best, not necessarily the oldest!

Bature wrote from  Daura Street, Kofar Kaura Layout, Katsina