The recent appointment of Justice Kudirat Motonmori Kekere-Ekun as the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) by President Bola Tinubu, following the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC), has sparked a significant legal debate.

The controversy centers on whether this appointment is constitutional, given that it has not yet been ratified by the National Assembly.

Legal Framework: Section 231 of the Constitution

The appointment of the Chief Justice of Nigeria is governed by Section 231 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. According to Section 231 (1), the President is required to appoint a person to the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria based on the recommendation of the NJC, but this appointment must be confirmed by the Senate.

Section 231 (4) further provides that if the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant, or the incumbent is unable to perform their duties, the President may appoint the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court to act as the Chief Justice of Nigeria until a substantive appointment is made and confirmed.

The Controversy

Justice Kekere-Ekun’s appointment, while procedurally valid under Section 231(4) as an acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Critics argue that this omission is unconstitutional, as Section 231(1) requires Senate confirmation for the appointment of a Chief Justice of Nigeria. However, it is essential to recognize that Justice Kekere-Ekun has only been appointed in an acting capacity, which, under Section 231(5), allows for such an appointment to last for up to three months without Senate confirmation.

The legal provision in Section 231(4) anticipates scenarios where immediate Senate confirmation may not be feasible, such as in the case of an acting appointment. This provision ensures the continuity of judicial leadership while allowing the legislative process to catch up. Therefore, the current situation does not constitute a constitutional violation; rather, it reflects the flexibility built into the legal framework to address temporary vacancies in the judiciary’s top office.

The Way Forward

As the acting Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kekere-Ekun is expected to discharge her duties effectively, with the understanding that her position remains temporary until Senate ratification is secured. The next critical step is for the President to submit her name to the Senate for confirmation, in compliance with Section 231(1). Should this confirmation occur within the three-month window provided by the Constitution, her position will be regularized without any breach of constitutional provisions.

Conclusion

In summary, while the controversy surrounding Justice Kekere-Ekun’s appointment raises valid concerns about constitutional procedure, it is important to acknowledge that her acting role is legally supported under Section 231(4) of the Constitution. The room for ratification by the National Assembly exists, and it is imperative that this process be completed to uphold the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary and its constitutional framework. 

Arrest of PIDOM Nigeria; Nigeria’s Foremost Whistleblower on X (Twitter)

News making rounds on X recently was that Bristol Tamunobiefiri, known as PIDOMNigeria, a popular figure on the social media space known for leaking government confidential documents and blowing whistle on planned government action was arrested by the Nigeria Police. Not only had he been arrested, but the entire operations surrounding the arrest was kept secret until other journalists started to raise alarm about it. 

According to Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ), the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has reportedly denied lawyers and family members access to Isaac Bristol, believed to be behind the X handle @PIDOMNigeria, who has been in custody since August 5. According to reports, the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) refused access to Deji Adeyanju, Isaac’s lawyer, on Saturday, allegedly on instructions from the National Cybercrime Center (NCCC) following media reports about Isaac’s mistreatment, including abduction, chaining, and starvation for six days.

Sources close to the matter have indicated that security agencies may relocate Isaac to a blacksite, away from media and legal representatives, potentially as soon as Sunday night or after a court hearing on Monday. This development raises serious concerns about transparency and adherence to legal processes.

While we cannot comment on the veracity of most of the claims surrounding the arrest, we take a look at the legal implications of his arrest.   

Possible Charges against PIDOM

As at the time of writing this article there has been a lot of reports and assumptions both from the Police and the general public on the actual charges against PIDOMNigeria. However, until he is formally charged to court, these are some of the charges that may be brought against him. 

Based on the details provided, here are possible legal infractions that PIDOM (Isaac Bristol) could be charged with under Nigerian law: 

1. Cybercrimes

• Cyberstalking: Under Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act, 2015, if PIDOM’s online activities are deemed to cause fear, alarm, or distress to individuals or government bodies, he could be charged with cyberstalking.
• Unlawful Access to Computer Systems: If he accessed any classified or protected systems unlawfully, this could be an offense under Section 6 of the Cybercrimes Act.

2. Unlawful Possession of Classified Documents

• If PIDOM is found in possession of classified government documents, he could be charged under laws that criminalize the unlawful possession and dissemination of government secrets, such as the Official Secrets Act.

3. Undermining Government Operations

• Depending on the nature of his activities, he could be charged with offenses related to sedition or other crimes that involve actions considered to undermine the authority or operations of the government.

4. Terrorism Related Offenses

• As unbelievable as this sounds, it could happen. If any of his activities are interpreted as intending to instill fear or coerce the government, he could potentially face charges under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.

5. Sedition or Incitement

• The specific charges would depend on the evidence collected by law enforcement and how the prosecutor chooses to frame the case.

Legal Implications of PIDOMNigeria’s Arrest

The recent arrest of PIDOMNigeria, by the Nigeria Police Force’s National Cybercrime Centre raises several legal concerns. The arrest, which was reportedly carried out without a warrant, has sparked widespread outrage, particularly due to allegations that PIDOMNigeria was starved for six days and detained beyond the constitutional 48-hour limit without being charged or given access to legal representation. 

These actions potentially violate Section 35 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, including the right to be informed promptly of the charges against one and the right to legal representation. These acts by members of the force not only violates the constitution of Nigeria but also a violation of human rights as contained in the African Charter for Human Peoples’ rights. See the case of Alade v. Federal Republic of Nigeria; ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/12 

Conclusion

The arrest and detention of PIDOMNigeria, especially under these conditions, underscore the need for strict adherence to legal procedures to maintain public trust in law enforcement and the justice system.