By Chinedu Agu

The recent decision of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission [JSC] to narrow the list of candidates for the office of the substantive Chief Judge of Imo State to only Hon. Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu and Hon. Justice E.O. Agada raises more questions than answers.

Initially, in its communication to the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri, the JSC invited comments on the suitability of four eminent judicial officers, namely: Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua [the Acting Chief Judge], Hon. Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu, Hon. Justice E.O. Agada, and Hon. Justice L.C. Azuama. This was in their order of judicial seniority.

After the commentaries from the NBA Owerri and other branches of the NBA in Imo State, the Commission now presents only two names: Hon. Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu and Hon. Justice E.O. Agada for comments of the members of the public.

The unavoidable implication is that the Commission considers these two candidates more suitable than Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua and Hon. Justice L.C. Azuama. If that is the case, then the Commission owes the public, the Bar, the Bench, the National Judicial Council [NJC], and the institution of justice in Imo State a clear explanation.

For the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge of a State, section 271(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, provides:

“The appointment of a person to the office of Chief Judge of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council subject to confirmation of the appointment by the House of Assembly of the State.”

But section 271(1) does not stand alone. It has to be read together with paragraph 6, Part II(C) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, which provides that:

“The Commission shall have power to —
(a) advise the National Judicial Council on suitable persons for nomination to the office of —
(i) the Chief Judge of the State…”

The constitutional word, therefore, is “suitable.” The JSC is not merely to forward names. It is to advise the NJC on suitable persons for nomination to the office of Chief Judge of the State.

It is true that, for the substantive appointment of a Chief Judge, the Constitution does not make seniority the sole or automatic test. That is unlike the appointment of an Acting Chief Judge, where seniority is constitutionally commanded. For a substantive Chief Judge, suitability is the governing consideration.

But suitability is not a convenient word to be filled with political prejudice, executive preference, private comfort, or institutional vendetta.

The Constitution does not define “suitable.” In its ordinary grammatical meaning, the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines “suitable” as being “right or appropriate for a particular purpose or occasion.” Applied to the office of Chief Judge of a State, suitability must therefore mean being right and appropriate for the constitutional, judicial, administrative, moral, and institutional responsibilities of that office.

It is not enough that a candidate is preferred. It must be shown that the candidate is right for the office. It is not enough that a candidate is convenient. It must be shown that the candidate is appropriate for the burdens of judicial leadership.

That is why suitability, in this context, must be interrogated through objective indices: integrity, sound knowledge of law, judicial competence, quality of judgments, diligence, courage, independence, reputation, administrative capacity, physical and mental fitness, seniority, judicial experience, institutional memory, and the confidence the candidate commands within the justice sector.

This is consistent with the NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of all Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria. Under those Guidelines, the JSC, in carrying out the provisional shortlisting exercise, is required to consider professional expertise and competence, quality of judgments, performance, demonstration of judicial skills, sound knowledge of law, seniority at the Bar or on the Bench, and to do so without compromising the independence of the Judiciary or allowing politics to permeate or influence the appointment.

The Guidelines further require that the Commission should not include in the provisional shortlist any person whose reputation in the locality is low or has been tarnished, or any judicial officer whose performance has been consistently rated low or unsatisfactory in judicial performance evaluation reports.

They also require that, in considering each shortlisted candidate, the Commission should have before it the completed NJC Form A, comments received from relevant persons and bodies, any petition or protest and the candidate’s response thereto, a detailed medical certificate of fitness issued by a Government Hospital or Medical Institution, and a DSS report on the suitability of the candidate supported by verifiable facts.

In other words, the JSC cannot lawfully or morally arrive at suitability by guesswork, rumour, political discomfort, or mere dislike of a judge’s independence. It must arrive at suitability by reference to ascertainable, verifiable, and constitutionally relevant materials.

It must also be appreciated that, under section 271(3) of the Constitution, a person is qualified to hold office as a Judge of a High Court of a State if he or she is qualified to practise as a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so qualified for not less than ten years. This reinforces the point that substantive appointment is not designed as a mechanical seniority promotion.

But that point does not destroy seniority. Seniority remains a serious constitutional and institutional consideration, especially where the most senior judge has a clean official record, long judicial service, proven administrative experience, and has already been entrusted with the office in acting capacity.

Therefore, where a JSC departs from seniority in a matter as sensitive as the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge, especially against a sitting Acting Chief Judge who has not been found guilty of malfeasance by the NJC, the burden of explanation becomes heavier.

If these are the standards, then the exclusion of Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua, the Acting Chief Judge of Imo State, becomes difficult to understand.

Justice Agugua was appointed a judge in 1993. She is not just senior, she is vastly senior. Her judicial career has spanned decades. Her record, from all available indications, remains one marked by long service, monastic dedication, institutional memory, and judicial experience.

Let me be clear for the avoidance of doubt: when it comes to courtroom temperament, My Lord Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua may not be my favourite judge, and I know many lawyers who may not describe her as their favourite either. Her exacting insistence on lawyers’ preparedness sometimes makes her stern, even sharp, with counsel who come before her without proper mastery of the facts and issues in their cases.

But this is precisely why the conversation must be honest. Judicial temperament is one factor. It is not the only factor. Even where one has reservations about a judge’s courtroom temperament, such reservations must be weighed against the judge’s integrity, courage, independence, seniority, administrative experience, judicial record, and proven capacity to hold the institution together.

On those other critical indices, Justice Agugua cannot simply be wished away.

Let it also be clearly stated that this intervention is not an argument that Hon. Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu is not suitable. Far from it. My Lord Justice Ononeze-Madu is, by every fair account, also suitable for consideration. Like Justice Agugua, she has also faced allegations in the past and has, on more than one occasion, been cleared of malfeasance by the appropriate judicial authorities. Therefore, she too is suitable — at least, “NJC-ically.”

The issue, therefore, is not that Justice Ononeze-Madu is unfit. The issue is that if both Justice Agugua and Justice Ononeze-Madu have clean official records, if both have been cleared of allegations, and if both are suitable, then a credible shortlist should naturally bear Justice I.O. Agugua as number one and Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu as number two, in their order of seniority. That would have been easier to understand. That would have been more defensible.

If Hon. Justice Agugua’s official record is clean, if she has not been found wanting by the appropriate judicial bodies, and if her long years of service remain unblemished, then one must ask: what exactly makes her less suitable than those now preferred?

Whatever is now being relied upon to suggest that Justice Agugua is unsuitable ought to be something serious enough to have prevented her from remaining on the Bench for this length of time — 33 years! A person cannot be good enough to serve as a judge for decades, good enough to preside over causes and controversies, good enough to be appointed an Acting Chief Judge, but suddenly not good enough to make a shortlist for substantive appointment without a clear, objective, and verifiable reason.

This question becomes more troubling when one considers the reported state of health of one of the shortlisted candidates, Hon. Justice E.O. Agada. If, as widely discussed, he has not sat for over two years on account of serious health fragility, then the question becomes unavoidable: how does such a candidate become more suitable than Justice Agugua or Justice Azuama?

This is not a personal attack on any judicial officer, nor is it an attempt to mock anyone on account of health. Good health ultimately comes from God, and no mortal should make jest of another person’s physical condition. The point being made is institutional, not personal. Where the office in question demands constant presence, administrative strength, and active judicial leadership, the health and physical capacity of every candidate must be treated as a legitimate suitability question.

The office of Chief Judge is not ceremonial. It is not a retirement gift. It is not an office to be occupied in name only. It requires presence, strength, clarity, administrative capacity, judicial leadership, and the ability to stand as the head of the Judiciary in the State.

Since the Guidelines require a detailed medical certificate of fitness, the public is entitled to ask whether the issue of physical capacity was considered objectively, uniformly, and honestly in this process.

0There is also the disturbing rumour that some NBA Chairmen in Imo State were reportedly given $5,000 each, not only to ensure that Justice Agugua was not recommended, but also to ensure that the Branches remained quiet throughout the process after the shortlisting. I must state clearly that I do not believe a rumour merely because it is in circulation, and I do not assert this allegation as a fact.

However, the studied silence of the Bar in the State in the face of these troubling developments has not helped matters. If anything, that silence lends colour to the rumour and makes it increasingly difficult to dismiss the allegation as idle street talk. Where the Bar, which should ordinarily be the sentinel of the justice system, suddenly appears muted in a matter touching the leadership of the Judiciary, reasonable minds are entitled to ask whether the silence is natural, negotiated, or purchased.

If the rumour is false, then those concerned should welcome transparency. If the process is clean, let it be shown to be clean. If the commentaries were honest, let the criteria and recommendations speak for themselves. But if the Bar was quietly turned into an instrument for laundering a predetermined exclusion, then the matter is far more serious than many people think.

If the exclusion of Justice Agugua is based on something known to the Commission, let the Commission say so within the bounds of fairness and due process. But if her only offence is that she is perceived as too independent, too firm, and not easily bendable to the whims and caprices of political authority, then Imo State is not merely dealing with a judicial appointment. It is dealing with an institutional scandal.

We must also not forget the history of this matter. On subject matters connected to this and other issues of good governance in Imo State, I spent 28 days under incarceration in September and October 2025. That experience did not erase my memory. It did not silence my conscience. It only strengthened my conviction that the Judiciary must not be reduced to an annex of Government House. And if asking these questions again means that I may have to reunite with the friends I made within those prison walls, then so be it. The Judiciary, the place where I ply my trade is worth that risk!

The long delay before Justice Agugua was sworn in as Acting Chief Judge, the earlier, unsuccessful attempt to place another person ahead of her, and the present move excluding her from the final shortlist all point to one uncomfortable conclusion: there appears to be something about her independence that those in power do not find convenient.

But the Judiciary is not supposed to be convenient for politicians. It is supposed to be independent. It is supposed to be courageous. It is supposed to be the last hope of the common man, not the obedient servant of transient political power.

A process that produces questions instead of confidence cannot be called transparent. A process that appears to punish independence cannot be called fair. A process that ignores seniority, clean record, long service, administrative experience, and proven institutional courage without explanation cannot be called credible.

The Imo State Judicial Service Commission must therefore answer a simple question: what exactly disqualifies Justice I.O. Agugua from making the final shortlist?

Until that question is answered, this shortlist will continue to look less like an exercise in suitability and more like an exercise in political elimination.

This is no longer about one judge alone but about the soul of the Judiciary in Imo State. It is about whether judges who insist on independence will be rewarded with respect or punished with systematic exclusion.

The National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Nigerian Bar Association, the Save the Judiciary Coalition, and all lovers of justice must watch this process carefully.

If judicial seniority, clean record, integrity, independence, health, capacity, and long service no longer matter, then we must be bold enough to ask what now matters. And if the answer is political convenience, then the danger before us is greater than one appointment.

For the sake of the Judiciary, for the sake of Imo State, and for the sake of the Bar, this matter must not be swept under the carpet.

The Commission must explain. The NJC must interrogate. The Bar must not be silent. Civil society must not be silent.

And the public must continue to ask uncomfortable questions.

* Chinedu Agu is a human rights activist and can be reached at ezeomeaku@gmail.com

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.