TUNDE OYESINA writes that lawyers have decried the deficiencies in judges’ appointment process, saying it contributes largely to broader systemic challenges within the judiciary, including delays and inefficiencies in justice delivery
The integrity of the judiciary remains the bedrock upon which the rule of law rests in any democratic society. In Nigeria, concerns about the quality, transparency and credibility of judicial appointments have continued to generate intense debate among legal practitioners, civil society groups and policymakers.
Increasingly, lawyers are calling for sweeping reforms in the appointment process, arguing that the effectiveness of the judiciary is directly tied to how judges emerge into office. The call was premised on the concerns recently raised by a retired former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, regarding the process of judges’ appointment. The retired jurist warned that the ‘faulty process’ is weakening the judiciary due to what he described as ‘limited professional exposure’ among many appointees.
Justice Salami, who spoke in Ilorin after receiving the 2025 Human Rights Defender Award from the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (WSCIJ), said appointments to the High Court now appear to be treated largely as a promotion avenue for magistrates. According to him, the trend undermines the quality of justice delivery, as many appointees lack the broad legal experience required for the Bench.
He recalled that during the tenure of Justice Taslimi Elias as Chief Justice of Nigeria, the appointment of magistrates to the High Court was discouraged in order to preserve standards. “A magistrate is master of his court, but the exposure is limited. State counsel and private practitioners appear before different courts and gain wider experience necessary for judicial work,” he said. He further stressed that the weakness in the judiciary is not necessarily due to corruption, but largely due to insufficient capacity arising from poor appointment standards.
The retired jurist urged judges to be courageous and steadfast in the discharge of their duties, especially in politically sensitive cases. “Courage is the basis of justice. If you don’t have courage, you can’t do justice,” he said, adding that judges must remain patriotic and committed to truth at all times.
These calls have gained renewed momentum amid growing public scrutiny and institutional reforms aimed at restoring confidence in the justice system. At the heart of the agitation is the perception that the current system, though structured, is not sufficiently transparent or meritdriven in practice. While the existing framework emphasizes integrity, competence, and experience, critics argued that the implementation has often fallen short, with allegations of favoritism, patronage, and lack of accountability.
NJC should adopt international best practices in judges’ appointments
The recent decision by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to allow public participation in the vetting of candidates has been widely seen as a response to sustained pressure for reform. Legal experts contended that improving the judicial appointment process is not merely an administrative necessity, but a constitutional imperative.
They argued that a judiciary perceived as compromised undermines justice delivery, weakens public trust, and threatens democratic governance. Consequently, the call for reform is framed not only as a professional demand, but as a national priority requiring urgent attention from all stakeholders within the justice sector.
Process of appointment
The appointment of judicial officers in Nigeria is governed primarily by the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which establishes a multi-layered process involving several institutions. At the apex of this process is the National Judicial Council (NJC), which plays a central role in recommending candidates for judicial appointments.
The NJC works in conjunction with bodies such as the Federal Judicial Service Commission and State Judicial Service Commissions, which initiate and process nominations. Typically, the process begins with a notice indicating the need to fill vacant judicial positions. Judicial Service Commissions then invite applications or nominations from qualified candidates, including legal practitioners, judicial officers, and academics.
The process also involves consultation with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which is expected to provide input on the suitability of candidates. Following the submission of applications, shortlisted candidates undergo rigorous screening, including background checks, professional evaluations, and interviews conducted by the NJC. Candidates must demonstrate integrity, competence, and substantial legal experience.
Importantly, the rules prohibit lobbying or canvassing for judicial positions, with such conduct serving as grounds for disqualification. For higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the process culminates in presidential appointment based on NJC recommendations, subject to confirmation by the Senate. This layered approach is designed to ensure checks and balances, though critics argue that it sometimes introduces bureaucratic delays and opportunities for undue influence.
Systemic weaknesses
Despite its elaborate structure, the judicial appointment process in Nigeria has been criticized for several systemic weaknesses. A social commentator and Convener of Justice Right, Julius Nwoye, while speaking at a roundtable in Abuja noted that, “one major concern is the lack of transparency in the selection and evaluation stages. “Although guidelines require public notices and stakeholder engagement, many aspects of the process remain opaque, leading to suspicion and mistrust among practitioners and the general public.
“Another significant weakness is the alleged dominance of patronage and informal networks”. Some critics, however argued, that the process is often influenced by powerful individuals or groups within the legal and political systems, thereby undermining meritbased selection. This perception has fueled concerns that highly qualified candidates may be overlooked in favour of those with connections. The issue of inadequate objective assessment criteria has also been raised.
While the NJC emphasizes qualities such as integrity and competence, stakeholders argued that there is insufficient reliance on measurable indicators, such as performance records, written examinations, or peer reviews. Calls have been made for the introduction of standardized testing and more rigorous evaluation mechanisms to enhance objectivity.
Additionally, concerns have been expressed about limited public participation and accountability. Although recent reforms have introduced mechanisms for public input, critics argued that these measures are still evolving and may be susceptible to abuse if not properly managed. There are fears that public commentary could be manipulated for political or personal ends without adequate safeguards.
Ex-VP Osinbajo, others’ concern
Over the years, several individuals and organizations have advocated for reforms in the judicial appointment process in the country. A former Vice-President, Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), had in 2022 called for a more thorough, rigorous and unbiased process of appointing judicial officers. He bared his mind at a Justice Sector Reform Summit tagged, “Devising Practical Solutions Towards Improved Performance, Enhanced Accountability and Independence in the Justice Sector”, organized by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Abuja.
Osinbajo said: “On the question of appointments, I think it is fair to say that for practically any job at all, no matter how menial or exalted, it is the norm that the applicant will go through some process of evaluation and interview. The rigour of such processes usually depends on the enormity of the responsibility the applicant is to bear, and ultimately, the outcome considered reasonable from such an exercise is that it is the best from amongst the applicants that will emerge successful.
“This is why it is quite frankly stunning that the process for evaluation and interview of judges, men and women statutorily empowered to literarily determine the lives and livelihoods of others is one of the least rigorous processes imaginable. “In the United Kingdom from where we derive most of the structures of our judicature, applicants to judicial office in superior courts go through several screening processes, at some point, it was 17 stages, including written examinations, interviews and role-play exercises.
“They are subjected to rigorous background investigations covering professional credentials and abilities, public records, judicial pronouncements, and personal financial affairs; evaluation by the Bar Association on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. And in the US, Supreme Court appointments involve rigorous public screening by the Senate, which sifts through the entire public, and sometimes private lives of candidates. “That is the nature of the rigour that anyone who should hold the power of life and death, and power over other people’s livelihoods, should go through.
It shouldn’t be a “take a bow” situation at all. It must be rigorous because the moment the person is appointed into a high office of that sort, they are unleashed as it were on the rest of us. “The robustness and transparency of the processes in these jurisdictions provide comfort to the candidates of the fairness of the selection process and enables the public to have front-row seat in some of these processes”. In a related development, a rights group, Open Bar Initiative (OBI), has challenged the credibility of a list of judicial nominees, alleging that several candidates were unqualified.
The group’s intervention underscored the need for greater scrutiny and accountability in the selection process. Civil society organizations, including Access to Justice, have equally consistently highlighted the need for reforms to strengthen judicial accountability and efficiency. These groups argued that deficiencies in appointment process contribute to broader systemic challenges within the judiciary, including delays and inefficiencies in justice delivery.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), as the umbrella body of legal practitioners, has also played a critical role in advocating for reforms. The NBA has repeatedly called for transparency, fairness, and adherence to merit in judicial appointments, emphasizing that the credibility of the judiciary depends on the quality of its personnel.
Judicial stakeholders, including senior advocates and retired judges, have equally contributed to the discourse. Many have supported the NJC’s recent decision to allow public participation, describing it as a step toward greater openness and accountability. However, they have also cautioned against potential misuse of the process.
The National Assembly, through its committees on justice, has shown interest in judicial reforms, recognizing the importance of a credible judiciary in sustaining democratic governance. Legislative oversight has been identified as a key mechanism for ensuring accountability within the justice sector. Academic institutions and legal scholars have also contributed to the debate, proposing reforms such as the introduction of judicial appointment commissions independent of political influence.
These proposals are aimed at enhancing professionalism and insulating the process from external pressures. International organizations and development partners have similarly advocated for reforms, emphasizing the link between judicial independence and economic development. They argued that a transparent and efficient judiciary is essential for attracting investment and promoting the rule of law.
Media organizations have played a crucial role in highlighting issues related to judicial appointments, bringing public attention to controversies and reforms. Investigative reports and opinion pieces have contributed to shaping public discourse on the subject. Overall, the convergence of voices from diverse stakeholders reflects a broad consensus on the need for reform. While opinions may differ on the specifics, there is general agreement that the current system requires significant improvement to meet contemporary standards of transparency and accountability.
Lawyers speak
In his comments, an Abujabased lawyer, Bright Enado, expressed deep concern about the current process of judges’ recruitment which he said ‘lacks sufficient transparency’, thus leading to the exclusion of qualified lawyers without clear justification. “There should be publication of detailed criteria used in selecting candidates to enhance accountability. “There is also a need for independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the appointment process.
Such measures would help eliminate undue influence and ensure fairness. “I will also advocate for the introduction of written examinations for prospective judges, as this would provide an objective basis for assessing competence. “Public confidence in the judiciary is directly linked to the credibility of its appointment process. Reforms are long overdue. The NJC should adopt international best practices in judicial appointments to strengthen the Nigerian judiciary”, Enado said
. In his submissions, a senior lawyer, Chioma Eze, raised the issue of gender imbalance in judicial appointments, calling for deliberate efforts to promote inclusivity and diversity. She said: “Transparency alone is not sufficient, the need for accountability in decision-making processes is equally needed. “I support public participation, but we should guard against its potential misuse.
There should be clear guidelines to regulate the process. There should be greater involvement of younger lawyers in the nomination process, as this would bring fresh perspectives into the judiciary. “Reforming the appointment process is essential for ensuring justice and equality in the legal system”. Speaking on the issue, a senior lawyer, Dauda Badams, was concerned on the role of the NBA in the appointment process, stating that the association must be more proactive in vetting candidates.
“The NBA should establish a standing committee dedicated to judicial appointments to ensure consistency and professionalism. “There should be the use of technology in the selection process, including digital platforms for applications and assessments. “Delays in the appointment process often result in judicial vacancies, which negatively impact the administration of justice. In my view, reforms should prioritize efficiency as well as transparency”, Badams said.
In his views, Mayowa Ajayi emphasizes the importance of merit in judicial appointments, arguing that competence should be the primary criterion. He said: “The influence of political considerations in the process should be removed and there should be a stricter enforcement of rules against lobbying. “I am in support of the idea of public interviews for judicial candidates, similar to practices in some jurisdictions. Improving the appointment process would enhance the quality of judgements and reduce errors.
Ultimately, reforms are necessary to restore public trust in the judiciary”. In his comments, a senior lawyer, Abiodun Olugbemide, spoke on the need for continuous training and evaluation of judges, stating that appointment should not be the end of the assessment process. “There should be a performancebased promotion systems to ensure accountability within the judiciary. There should also be greater collaboration between judicial bodies and academic institutions.
Reforming judges’ appointment process is essential for equity and justice
“Reforms should address both appointment and post-appointment processes. A holistic approach is required to achieve meaningful improvements in the judiciary. Integrity should be given equal weight as competence in the selection process. “Civil society organizations should be involved in monitoring the appointment process. There is need for transparency in handling complaints against candidates. Strengthening ethical standards is key to building a credible judiciary”, Olugbemide said.
Sharing his thoughts on the issue, a senior lawyer, Onesimus Ruya, noted that while public participation is a necessary component of judicial reform, it must be paired with broader institutional changes—merit-based appointments, regular performance evaluations, financial autonomy, and discipline for erring judges. He said: “A judiciary that commands public confidence begins with appointments that are seen to be credible, fair and open. The NJC’s initiative is a step forward, but not the destination.
“The NJC’s call for public comment is a promising attempt at participatory justice reform. However, for it to have lasting impact, it must move beyond form to substance. “The real test will lie in how the Council uses the information provided and whether it is willing to reject candidates with questionable reputations, no matter how wellconnected they may be”. For Adaora Obiechina, “It is not enough to put up notices online. The NJC should consider holding public hearings or stakeholder fora to openly vet controversial candidates.
The local Bar branches should be empowered to submit collective assessments. “No one knows the integrity or temperament of judicial candidates more than the lawyers in their locality. The NJC should give serious weight to reports from local NBA branches. “There is currently no statutory obligation for the NJC to act on public commentary. Until this process is backed by clear rules or constitutional amendment, it may remain toothless”.
