Imo AG challenges NJC authority over Chief Judge nomination process

The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice of Imo State, Paul Obinatu, has formally challenged the constitutional authority of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to dictate the specific candidate that the state must nominate for the position of substantive Chief Judge. On November 6, 2026, Obinatu released a public address to respond to an order given by the NJC during its 112th session on November 3. The order addressed the steps required to select a permanent Chief Judge in Imo State, leading the Attorney-General to explain the separate constitutional duties of the two bodies.

Within that address, Obinatu maintained that the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) possesses an independent constitutional duty to evaluate and propose qualified individuals for the position. He argued that the NJC lacks the power to control, dictate, or substitute its preferred candidate for the choice made by the State Commission. The Attorney-General stated that while the NJC has the constitutional duty to recommend a candidate to the governor, this responsibility does not grant it the additional power to determine which individual the State JSC must submit for consideration.

Background

The dispute centers on the interpretation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Obinatu cited Section 202 of the Constitution, which he noted protects the State Judicial Service Commission from external interference in the exercise of its functions. According to the Attorney-General, this provision establishes a clear constitutional safeguard that prevents any other authority or person from directing or controlling the commission. He contended that this safeguard cannot be superseded by the NJC via administrative orders or procedural rules.

Obinatu also cited Section 271(1) and applicable clauses of the Constitution’s Third Schedule, which define the specific functions of the State JSC, the NJC, and the governor during the selection procedure. He noted that Part II, Paragraph 6(a) of the Third Schedule grants the State Judicial Service Commission the authority to advise the NJC on appropriate individuals for nomination as Chief Judge. In contrast, Part I, Paragraph 21(c) gives the NJC the power to suggest a candidate to the governor. The Attorney-General argued that the NJC is not permitted to use its national standing or recommendation authority to dominate the Imo State JSC in ways that contradict these constitutional rules.

The NJC released the aforementioned order during its November 3, 112th session, with the objective of steering the selection of a permanent Chief Judge for Imo State. The Attorney-General’s response suggests a significant disagreement over the boundaries of institutional power within the Nigerian judicial appointment framework. By asserting that the State JSC is constitutionally protected from external direction, Obinatu positioned the state’s legal stance against what he viewed as an overreach by the national body.

Why it matters

This constitutional dispute has direct implications for the independence of state judicial appointments and the balance of power between national and state judicial bodies. The outcome of this disagreement will determine whether the NJC can impose specific procedural or candidate-related directives on State Judicial Service Commissions. For the people of Imo State, the process affects the timely and lawful appointment of a substantive Chief Judge, a role critical to the administration of justice in the state. The Attorney-General’s assertion highlights the tension between national oversight and state autonomy in the judicial system, a dynamic that could influence similar appointments in other states if the NJC’s directives are upheld or challenged in legal forums.

The reaction from the NJC to the Attorney-General’s statement has not been detailed in the available sources, but the public nature of the dispute indicates a formal institutional disagreement. The clarity of the constitutional provisions cited by Obinatu suggests that the matter may require further clarification from legal experts or potentially judicial review to resolve the competing interpretations of the appointment powers.