The Society of Public Interest Lawyers in Nigeria (SPI-LAW) has challenged Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, over his reported opposition to a directive by the National Judicial Council (NJC) concerning the appointment of the state’s substantive Chief Judge.
The group called on Obinatu to clarify whether his position represents an authorised decision of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) or the legal stance of the state government.
In a letter dated November 8, 2026, and signed by its President, John Aikpokpo-Martins, SPI-LAW expressed concern over the Attorney-General’s reported challenge to the NJC’s request that Justice Ijeoma Agugua, the state’s most senior High Court judge and Acting Chief Judge, be included in the shortlist for the substantive position.
The organisation said the Attorney-General was entitled to express legal opinions on constitutional issues but urged him to do so in a manner that promotes institutional cooperation, judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.
SPI-LAW maintained that the appointment process must be guided by the Constitution and the respective responsibilities of the State JSC, the NJC, the Governor and the State House of Assembly.
It cited Section 271(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides for the appointment of a state Chief Judge by the Governor on the recommendation of the NJC, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly.
The group also referred to provisions of the Constitution assigning the State JSC an advisory role in identifying suitable candidates, while empowering the NJC to recommend a candidate from the list submitted.
Seniority and merit in appointment process
SPI-LAW stressed that seniority alone does not automatically entitle a judge to appointment as substantive Chief Judge.
However, it argued that the exclusion of Justice Agugua, who is already performing the duties of Acting Chief Judge, requires an objective and defensible explanation.
The organisation said the NJC’s directive to include her in the shortlist did not amount to an appointment, but would allow her to be assessed alongside other eligible candidates.
It urged the relevant authorities to either facilitate her inclusion or present any legal or eligibility objections through appropriate institutional channels.
The group also acknowledged that the constitutional boundaries between the State JSC’s shortlisting powers and the NJC’s authority to request reconsideration could be disputed.
It called for such disagreements to be resolved through constructive engagement or recourse to the courts.
JSC not a department of Ministry of Justice
SPI-LAW questioned the capacity in which Obinatu reportedly challenged the NJC’s directive, insisting that membership of the State JSC did not give the Attorney-General unilateral authority to speak for or determine the commission’s institutional position.
“The Commission is not a department of the Ministry of Justice, and the State Government’s position does not automatically constitute its decision,” the group stated.
It cited Section 202 of the Constitution, which protects the commission from external direction or control in the exercise of its constitutionally assigned functions.
The organisation therefore requested clarification on whether the Attorney-General’s statement reflected a duly authorised decision of the JSC or merely the position of the Imo State Government.
SPI-LAW warned against any conduct that could amount to improper interference with the commission’s deliberations, misrepresentation of its decisions or political pressure on judicial candidates.
It, however, acknowledged that a genuine disagreement over constitutional interpretation, honestly expressed and pursued through lawful means, does not automatically amount to professional misconduct.
The group also noted that an NJC administrative directive is not necessarily equivalent to a court order.
SPI-LAW warns of possible disciplinary petition
The organisation cautioned that public office does not exempt a legal practitioner from professional accountability.
It said it would consider submitting a properly supported complaint to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) if credible evidence established deliberate misrepresentation, improper interference or other conduct amounting to professional misconduct.
SPI-LAW said any complaint would identify the alleged misconduct, the relevant professional obligations and the supporting evidence, while respecting the Attorney-General’s right to respond.
It urged Obinatu to reconsider his reported position, clarify the government’s stance and promote constructive engagement between the NJC and the Imo State JSC.
The group also called for the appointment process to be resolved promptly, warning that prolonged disagreement could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Copies of the letter were sent to the Secretary of the NJC and the Chairman and Secretary of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission.
SPI-LAW maintained that the appointment of a Chief Judge must command public confidence through competence, integrity, fairness and adherence to the Constitution.
You must be logged in to post a comment.