The House of Representatives has taken legislative steps to protect judicial officers from unlawful removal through executive fiat, ensuring their independence and security of tenure.
During plenary on Thursday, lawmakers passed for a second reading A Bill for an Act to Amend the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act to Insulate Judicial Officers from Prosecution Before Being Lawfully Removed from Office and for Related Matters. The bill, sponsored by Rivers lawmaker Solomon Bob (Aboada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency), seeks to amend Sections 20 and 24 of the Principal Act.
The lawmaker, while leading the debate, said the amendment was intended to protect judicial officers from arbitrary prosecution and removal from office.
He explained, “Section 20 of the Principal Act, which creates the Code of Conduct Tribunal, is proposed to be amended by adding the words which shall be a superior court of record with exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under this Act.”
Regarding Section 24, Bob proposed the addition of two subsections:
(5) Nothing in this Act shall permit the commencement of any action against a judicial officer before the tribunal unless such judicial officer has been validly removed from office under Section 292(1) of the Constitution.
(6) Any action seeking to prosecute any judicial officer in contravention of sub-section (5) of this section shall not be entertained by the tribunal.
Bob emphasised that the 1999 Constitution (as amended) outlines clear procedures for removing judicial officers, ensuring they are not arbitrarily dismissed.
He said, “The obvious intention is to obviate the threat of arbitrary removal from office, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the office and affording the officeholders the necessary leeway to discharge the functions of their office without fear of being victimised.”
Bob cited Section 292 of the Constitution, which mandates that the removal of a Head of Court by the President or Governor must be upon an address by the relevant Legislative House. In all other cases, judicial officers can only be removed upon the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.
Several lawmakers supported the bill, citing past instances where judicial officers were removed without due process.
Clement Uchenna (Nnewi North/Nnewi South/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency, Imo State) urged his colleagues to back the bill, referencing past judicial removals.
“We must do everything to protect the judiciary. We saw what happened to our former CJN. Even though he was later exonerated, he was not reinstated to office. We must protect our judicial officers from these shenanigans,” Uchenna said.
Similarly, Patrick Umoh (APC, Akwa Ibom) argued that judicial officers should be insulated from unnecessary trials.
“Judicial officers should be allowed to work without distractions. They should be excluded from trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal,” he stated.
Echoing this view, Sada Soli (Jibia Kaita Federal Constituency, Katsina State) stressed the clarity of Section 292 of the Constitution.
Referring to the controversial removal of former Chief Justice of Nigeria Walter Onnoghen, Soli said, “We remember when a judicial officer was taken to the tribunal without a word from the National Judicial Council, which recommended his appointment in the first place. The law says that before a judicial officer is removed from office, the NJC must have a say. As it is, the role of the NJC is being usurped by the executive arm.”
However, Kalejaiye Paul (APC, Lagos) cautioned against hasty amendments that could conflict with existing constitutional provisions.
“Let us not pass a bill that will be inconsistent with the constitution of Nigeria. We all know the reason the Code of Conduct Tribunal was established. We can protect judicial officers without insulating them,” Paul advised.
Following a voice vote administered by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary, the proposed legislation was referred to the House Committees on Anti-Corruption and Justice for further legislative action.
