Supreme Court Justices: Lagos Lawyer Tells Court To Mandate Buhari To Send NJC Recommended Names To Senate

A Lagos based lawyer, Lawrence C. Nnoli has on Thursday 16th July, 2020 approached the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court seeking leave to bring an application for an order of mandamus against President Mohammadu Buhari compelling him to immediately appoint Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and forward to the Nigerian Senate the names of the persons recommended to him by the National Judicial council since October 2019, TheNigeriaLawyer reports.

Other persons joined in the suit are the National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Senate.

According to Nnoli, the names of the persons recommended are the following Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal: Adamu Jauro, Emmanuel A. Agim, C. Oseji and Helen M. Ogunwumiju.

The Motion was brought exparte on the following grounds:

“1. The 1st Respondent as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has failed and neglected to appoint as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the persons recommended to him by the 2nd Respondent since October 2019
2. The 1st Respondent as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had also failed and neglected to forward to the Nigerian Senate the names of persons received by him from the 2nd Respondent who were recommended for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
3. The 1st Respondent as pointed out in Grounds 1 and 2 constitute serious breach to section 231(2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
4. The 1st Respondent’s inaction as pointed out in Grounds 1 and 2 above currently pose a grave danger to the cause and course of justice in Nigeria, especially at the Supreme Court as the inaction of the 1st Respondent, constitutes a major factor for delayed justice as the Supreme Court
5. That the continued delay of the 1st Respondent in carrying out the statutory duties of appointing as Supreme Court Justices persons already recommended to him by the 2nd Respondent poses a risk to the peace and progress as Nigerian citizens’ confidence in the Supreme Court towards dispensing justice in a timely manner may be eroded owing to insufficient number of Justices of the Supreme Court available to dispense justice in a timely manner.”

In a 21 paragraphed Affidavit in support of the Motion, Nnoli said he has “being called and admitted as Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” and has paid his Practicing Fee for the year 2020 adding that he is also a member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch and has paid his Branch dues.

Nnoli said he is a practicing lawyer with office in Lagos and is “his solemn responsibility as an active member of the Nigerian Bar Association to advance the interest and progress of Justice in Nigeria” including guarding against executive lawlessness and recklessness

In his written address in support of the Motion, Nnoli argued that he has sufficient interest in the matter in line with the requirement of Order 34(3)4 of the Federal High Court (Civil) Procedure Rules, 2019 which provides that:

“The judge shall not grant leave unless he considers that the Applicant has sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.”

On what sufficient interest entails, he relied on the case of Ezeagu Local Government v Ufuanya (1996)7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 226 at page 231 paragraphs F-H where the court held that:

“Sufficient interest is an adequate interest in the res or subject matter of the litigation. This could be tangible or intangible. The internet could be pecuniary or any other form which is borne out from the relief or reliefs of the litigation. What is sufficient interest in law is neither an exclusive matter of law alone nor an exclusive matter of fact alone; but one of mixed law and fact to be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of the matter. In determining the sufficiency of the interest, the court must examine the totality of the relief or reliefs sought and see whether relief or reliefs sought and see whether the facts relied upon by the applicant in the affidavit can be accommodated by the relief or reliefs sought.”

He also cited the case of Dododo v EFCC (2013)1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) 468

The matter is currently awaiting assignment to a judge for the hearing of the exparte application.A Lagos based lawyer, Lawrence C. Nnoli has on Thursday 16th July, 2020 approached the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court seeking leave to bring an application for an order of mandamus against President Mohammadu Buhari compelling him to immediately appoint Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and forward to the Nigerian Senate the names of the persons recommended to him by the National Judicial council since October 2019.are the National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Senate.

According to Nnoli, the names of the persons recommended are the following Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal: Adamu Jauro, Emmanuel A. Agim, C. Oseji and Helen M. Ogunwumiju.

The Motion was brought exparte on the following grounds:

“1. The 1st Respondent as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has failed and neglected to appoint as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the persons recommended to him by the 2nd Respondent since October 2019

2. The 1st Respondent as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had also failed and neglected to forward to the Nigerian Senate the names of persons received by him from the 2nd Respondent who were recommended for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
3. The 1st Respondent as pointed out in Grounds 1 and 2 constitute serious breach to section 231(2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
4. The 1st Respondent’s inaction as pointed out in Grounds 1 and 2 above currently pose a grave danger to the cause and course of justice in Nigeria, especially at the Supreme Court , especially at the Supreme Court as the inaction of the 1st Respondent,delayed justice as the Supreme Court
5. That the continued delay of the 1st Respondent in carrying out the statutory duties of appointing as Supreme Court Justices persons already recommended to him by the 2nd Respondent poses a risk to the peace and progress as Nigerian citizens’ confidence in the Supreme Court towards dispensing justice in a timely manner may be eroded owing to insufficient number of Justices of the Supreme Court available to dispense justice in a timely manner.”

In a 21 paragraphed Affidavit in support of the Motion, Nnoli said he has “being called and admitted as Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria” and has paid his Practicing Fee for the year 2020 adding that he is also a member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Lagos Branch and has paid his Branch dues.

Nnoli said he is a practicing lawyer with office in Lagos and is “his solemn responsibility as an active member of the Nigerian Bar Association to advance the interest and progress of Justice in Nigeria” including guarding against executive lawlessness and recklessness

In his written address in support of the Motion, Nnoli argued that he has sufficient interest in the matter in line with the requirement of Order 34(3)4 of the Federal High Court (Civil) Procedure Rules, 2019 which provides that:

“The judge shall not grant leave unless he considers that the Applicant has sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.”

On what sufficient interest entails, he relied on the case of Ezeagu Local Government v Ufuanya (1996)7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 226 at page 231 paragraphs F-H where the court held that:

“Sufficient interest is an adequate interest in the res or subject matter of the litigation. This could be tangible or intangible. The internet could be pecuniary or any other form which is borne out from the relief or reliefs of the litigation. What is sufficient interest in law is neither an exclusive matter of law alone nor an exclusive matter of fact alone, but one of mixed law and fact to be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of the matter. In determining the sufficiency of the interest, the court must examine the totality of the relief or reliefs sought and see whether relief or reliefs sought and see whether the facts relied upon by the applicant in the affidavit can be accommodated by the relief or reliefs sought.”

He also cited the case of Dododo v EFCC (2013)1 NWLR (Pt. 1336) 468

The matter is currently awaiting assignment to a judge for the hearing of the exparte application.