*Says ‘No Governor Has Discretion’ in Appointing Acting Chief Judge, Slams Imo Selection”
Renowned legal luminary Chief J.S. Okutepa, SAN, has issued a scathing rebuke of the recent appointment of an Acting Chief Judge in Imo State, describing it as a “sad constitutional aberration” and a blatant violation of Section 271(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
In a statement titled “No State Governor in Nigeria Has a Discretion in the Appointment of an Acting Chief Judge Under the 1999 Constitution,” Okutepa asserted that the Governor of Imo State lacks any discretion to bypass the most senior judge of the state’s High Court in making such an appointment, calling for urgent intervention by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
According to Okutepa, the Governor’s purported appointment of Hon. Mr. Justice T.N. Nzeukwu as Acting Chief Judge, despite Nzeukwu being the fourth most senior judge in the Imo State Judiciary, contravenes the peremptory provisions of the Constitution. He outlined that Hon. Mr. Justice Ijeoma Agugua, appointed in 1993, is the most senior judge, followed by Hon. Mr. Justice C.A. Ononeze Madu (2004), Hon. Mr. Justice E.O. Agada (2008), and then Justice Nzeukwu (2008). Okutepa emphasized that Section 271(4) unequivocally mandates the Governor to appoint “the most senior Judge of the High Court” to act as Chief Judge when the office is vacant or the incumbent is unable to perform its functions, leaving no room for discretion.
Section 271(4) provides: “If the office of Chief Judge of a State is vacant or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office, or until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the Governor of the State shall appoint the most senior Judge of the High Court to perform those functions.” Okutepa reiterated that this provision is in pari materia with the principles of judicial hierarchy and seniority, which are sacrosanct in the legal profession.
The senior advocate described the acceptance of the appointment by Justice Nzeukwu as “the most sacrilegious constitutional misconduct,” arguing that it undermines the judiciary’s integrity and the judicial oath to uphold the Constitution. “How can a judicial officer who is not the most senior judge of the High Court accept to be made the Acting Chief Judge in place of his seniors and in the face of the clear provisions of Section 271(4)?” Okutepa queried, calling the act a desecration of the very Constitution the appointee swore to defend.
Okutepa further clarified the constitutional framework governing judicial appointments. Section 270 establishes a High Court for each state, comprising a Chief Judge and other judges as prescribed by state law. Section 271(1) mandates that the appointment of a Chief Judge be made by the Governor on the NJC’s recommendation, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly. For acting appointments, Section 271(5) limits such appointments to three months without NJC approval, reinforcing the mandatory nature of appointing the most senior judge under Subsection (4).
The statement condemned the Governor’s action as an attempt to “bypass” Justice Ijeoma Agugua, the rightful appointee by virtue of seniority, regardless of personal or political considerations. Okutepa called on the NJC to intervene suo motu to rectify what he termed a “gross constitutional infraction” and urged the NBA to issue a formal statement refusing to recognize Justice Nzeukwu as Acting Chief Judge. He also appealed to lawyers in Imo State to uphold the rule of law by rejecting the appointment ab initio.
“The judiciary must insist and refuse to be rubbished,” Okutepa declared, stressing that Justice Agugua’s appointment as Acting Chief Judge is a “constitutional right” that must be respected. He warned that allowing such precedents risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary, particularly when politicians exploit judicial processes for partisan ends.
Legal observers note that this controversy adds to ongoing tensions in Imo State’s judiciary, with related suits challenging the Acting Chief Judge’s appointment already pending before the courts. The NJC, scheduled to meet on 29th and 30th April 2025, is expected to address the issue, which many see as a causa celebre testing the judiciary’s autonomy and adherence to constitutional stare decisis.
Okutepa concluded with a resolute stance: “I say no more,” signaling his belief that the facts and law speak unequivocally. As the legal community awaits the NJC’s response, the Imo judiciary remains under intense scrutiny, with calls growing louder for the restoration of constitutional order in the appointment of its Acting Chief Judge.
Evidence And Trial Proceedings, Pleadings And Damages, Civil Appeals — All In Civil Litigation Serial Volumes 4–6!


Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!

To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
