Imo Attorney-General Raises Concern Over NJC’s Alleged Constitutional Overreach In Chief Judge Appointment

The Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, has accused the National Judicial Council (NJC) of constitutional overreach over its reported directive to the state’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge.

Obinatu argued that the NJC lacks the constitutional authority to dictate which candidate the Imo State JSC should nominate or submit for consideration in the appointment process.

In a statement issued on November 6, 2026, the Attorney-General said the directive, reportedly issued at the NJC’s 112th meeting on November 3, amounted to interference in the independent constitutional responsibilities of the state commission.

He maintained that although the NJC has the power to recommend a candidate to the governor for appointment as Chief Judge, it cannot take over the responsibility of the state JSC to identify and advise on suitable candidates.

Citing Section 202 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Obinatu said the Imo State JSC was protected from the direction or control of any other authority or person in the exercise of its constitutional functions.

He argued that the provision prevented the NJC from using administrative directives or procedural guidelines to control the state commission’s independent assessment and recommendation process.

The Attorney-General also relied on Section 271(1) and provisions of the Third Schedule to the Constitution to support his position.

He explained that Paragraph 6(a) of Part II of the Third Schedule empowers the State Judicial Service Commission to advise the NJC on suitable persons for appointment as Chief Judge.

In contrast, Paragraph 21(c) of Part I empowers the NJC to recommend a candidate to the governor from among the names submitted by the state commission.

Section 271(1) provides that the governor appoints the Chief Judge on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.

According to Obinatu, the constitutional provisions establish separate responsibilities for the state commission, the NJC, the governor and the House of Assembly.

He said the NJC’s recommendation powers should not be interpreted as authority to determine the candidate the state commission must submit.

The Attorney-General further argued that the NJC’s Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers could not override constitutional provisions or confer powers not granted by the Constitution.

While acknowledging the council’s authority to regulate procedures for judicial appointments, he insisted that such powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.

Obinatu also cited previous court decisions, including Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (2012), Bamisile v. National Judicial Council & Ors. (2012) and FRN v. Nganjiwa (2022), which he said supported the principle that constitutional institutions must operate within their legally defined powers.

He warned that allowing the NJC to assume responsibilities assigned to the state commission could undermine the independence of the JSC and public confidence in the judicial appointment process.

The Attorney-General said the disagreement was not about which institution was superior but about ensuring that each body respected the constitutional limits of its authority.

He insisted that the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge for Imo State must follow the procedure established by the Constitution, arguing that the NJC could recommend a candidate to the governor but could not dictate the name the state commission must submit.