Imo: Appointing 4th Most Senior Judge Acting CJ Will Destroy Judiciary, Democracy, Lawyers Tell NJC

Alex Enumah in Abuja

Young legal practitioners under the platform of Lawyers for Civil Liberties, have warned of the dangers of allowing a situation where a junior judge is appointed as Acting Chief Judge or Chief Judge, above other senior judges.
The young lawyers pointed out that beyond the appointment being an aberration and against constitutional provisions, it will in the long run impact negatively on the judiciary and the country’s democracy, since it would put judges under the mercies of politicians.

The Lawyers for Civil Liberties sounded the warning on yesterday in Abuja, while speaking with journalists on the recent appointment of the 4th most senior judge as the Acting Chief Judge of Imo State.

It would be recalled that the Imo State Governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma, following the removal of immediate past CJ, Justice Theresa Chikeka, had appointed Justice T. N. Nzeukwu, Acting Chief Judge, against constitutional provisions.
Concerned about the development which many condemned, the young lawyers have appealed to the National Judicial Council (NJC), the body responsible for the appointment and disciplining of judicial officers, to step in and save the judiciary from the whims and caprices of politicians, especially state governors.

National Coordinator of the Lawyers for Civil Liberties, Mr. Victor Opatola, who spoke on behalf of the young lawyers described the situation as “disturbing” and “frightening”, lamenting that the breaches do not only happen, “but that they continue unchecked, as though the constitution provisions are mere inconvenience and not the supreme law.”
According to him, Section 271(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, was very clear on the issue of appointment of a Chief Judge.

“It is a simple, clear rule—one meant to avoid confusion and ensure the impartial and independent continuity of the judiciary. The provisions of the Constitution are not a matter of preference. It is not a discretion. It is a command,” he said.

Opatola recalled that the Imo State governor was guided by the said section in 2020, when he appointed Justice Ijeoma Agugua as Acting Chief Judge of Imo State.
“She was the most senior judge at the time. That initial step respected both law and logic. When she was eventually removed, she was not succeeded by the next most senior judge, Justice C. A. Ononeze Madu, but by Justice Theresa Chikeka, her junior.

“This was no oversight. It was deliberate. And it violated both the Constitution and the time-honoured protocol of seniority that anchors judicial stability,” he said.
The National Coordinator, also recalled that the Action People’s Party (APP) had petitioned the NJC, adding that despite public outrage then the NJC did nothing.

“Justice Chikeka served in that clouded position while under investigation for falsifying her age. When the NJC eventually recommended her removal, one might have hoped that constitutional order would return. But it did not.
“Instead, another junior, Justice T. N. Nzeukwu, was recently appointed Acting Chief Judge—once again over Justice Ijeoma Agugua (who was previously an Acting Chief Judge between 2020 -2021), Justice Ononeze Madu and Justice E.O Agada.  

“The NJC issued a disclaimer. The Nigerian Bar Association in Owerri protested. But still, the appointment stood.
“This is not the first time Nigeria has witnessed such an aberration. In Cross River State, a similar violation occurred when Justice Akon Ikpeme, the most senior judge, was bypassed for appointment as Chief Judge due to her alleged ties to another state by marriage.

“A junior judge was appointed instead. The NJC responded firmly. It insisted on the proper application of the Constitution, resisted political pressure, and eventually secured Justice Ikpeme’s confirmation.”

“But the damage to public confidence lingered. Same thing once happened in Kebbi State, Gombe State and Abia State, where the NJC intervened and doubled down on doing the right thing.

“So why is Imo State different? Why, despite repeated warnings and interventions, does the pattern persist? Why does the NJC hesitate to act heavily with the same resolve it showed in Cross River, Kebbi and others?

“These are not academic questions, every breach chips away at the foundations of trust reposed in the judiciary,” the lawyers stated.

They argued that when junior judges accept appointments they know are not theirs to take, they do more than violate tradition—they undermine the very structure that legitimises their office, adding that when the NJC fails to act, it sends a dangerous message: that the rules are bendable, that political convenience can trump the constitution, and that the judiciary is no longer guided by principle and law, but by influence.

“Right now, silence is not golden, NJC must not just frown in silence; it must speak. It must investigate. It must discipline. Because every time it fails to act, it confirms the public’s worst fears.

“We must insist on fidelity to the Constitution—not because it is convenient, but because it is essential. We must demand that those who lead our courts be men and women who have risen by merit, not by proximity to power and influence.

 “We must remind ourselves that every act of silence in the face of abuse enables and emboldens the abuser. The people are watching. So are the lawyers who still believe in the majesty of the law. And if the NJC will not act, then it, too, must answer for what the silence has cost us.

“Justice does not defend itself, it requires guardians. And in this moment, the judiciary must prove that it is strong enough to resist those who would bend it, and humble enough to correct its own missteps. If it cannot, then the fear is no longer that justice will be delayed—but that it will be forgotten,” he said.