Odinkalu Exposes Familial Ties In FCT High Court Judge Nominations Released By NBA, Slams Association’s ‘Self-Serving’ Actions

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has come under fire for publishing a list of candidates shortlisted for appointment as Judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The list was released for the general public to submit petitions, objections, or comments on the suitability of the candidates. However, critics have alleged that the selection process was marred by nepotism and a lack of transparency.

Human rights activist Chidi Odinkalu took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to express his concerns, stating that the list “illustrates everything wrong with the Nigerian judiciary.” He pointed out several instances where the candidates appear to have close familial ties to current or former high-ranking judicial officials.

Among the issues raised by Odinkalu:

• Candidate No. 7, Buetnaan, is the daughter of the President of the Court of Appeal, who was appointed a judge in Plateau State in 2021, raising questions about the transparency of her potential transfer.
• Candidate No. 11 is an in-law of Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike, who appointed her as a Senior Magistrate last year, suggesting potential quid pro quo arrangements.
• The list includes the daughters of the former and current Chief Judges of the FCT High Court (No. 5 and No. 9, respectively).
• Candidate No. 10 is the daughter-in-law of the current Chief Justice of Nigeria, while No. 12 is the daughter of his immediate predecessor.

Odinkalu accused the NBA of lending itself to legitimizing these “self-serving nominations” by publishing the list on a Friday during the Ramadan and Lenten periods, giving the public only two working days to provide comments.

“When I speak about filialization & genitalization of the Nigerian judiciary, this is an exhibit in that case,” Odinkalu tweeted, referring to the alleged nepotism and favoritism in judicial appointments.

The activist further criticized the “testicular fortitude” required for such a “perversion of high judicial office,” questioning why judicial positions were being treated as “family heirlooms or a genital insemination” instead of focusing on the administration of justice.