The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Ogun State, Oluwasina Ogungbade, has voiced strong opposition to a recent proposal by the House of Representatives to impose a five-year tenure on Nigeria’s judicial heads. This proposed bill, which would apply to the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), the President of the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judges of the 36 states, has been met with resistance from various quarters, including Ogungbade, who believes the move undermines the principle of seniority that has guided the Nigerian judiciary effectively for years.
Ogungbade shared his thoughts on the issue during an appearance on EAGLE 102.5 FM in Abeokuta, where he expressed concerns about the potential negative consequences of limiting the tenure of judicial heads. He argued that the existing system, which allows judicial heads to serve until they reach the age of 70 or complete 35 years of service, has worked well and should not be altered. The proposed legislation is part of the ongoing constitutional amendments being considered by the House Committee on Constitution Review and has been sponsored by Manu Soro, the member representing Darazo/Ganjuwa federal constituency in Bauchi State.
The Ogun Attorney-General stated that while reforms are necessary in certain areas, this particular proposal is unwarranted. “If it is not broken, you don’t even try to fix it,” Ogungbade said, emphasizing that the judiciary’s current seniority system has brought stability and certainty. He warned that altering the structure could lead to complications, particularly in cases where a judicial officer assumes office at an older age. For instance, if someone is appointed as CJN or Chief Judge at 68, the five-year tenure would force their exit by the age of 73, potentially disrupting the judicial system.
Ogungbade also pointed to the example of the United States, where the Chief Justice serves without a mandatory age limit, as a model worth considering. He underscored that changing the Nigerian system, which has operated without major issues for decades, could create unnecessary instability within the judicial branch.
The bill, which seeks to amend Section 29 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), is still under consideration, and Ogungbade’s comments reflect the broader debate over judicial reforms in Nigeria. While some believe the change could enhance accountability and effectiveness, others, like Ogungbade, argue that it risks damaging the foundation on which Nigeria’s judiciary has thrived.