Disagreements have emerged among senior lawyers in Nigeria over whether judges recently recommended for compulsory retirement due to age falsification should face prosecution.
The National Judicial Council led by Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, announced on November 15 that two court heads were recommended for compulsory retirement over discrepancies in their ages.
Among them was the Chief Judge of the Imo State High Court, Justice T. E. Chukwuemeka Chikeka.
Similarly, the NJC directed the Grand Kadi of Yobe State, Kadi Babagana Mahdi, to retire, citing his use of three conflicting birth dates—December 10, January 28, and July, all in 1959—when his actual birth year was 1952.
The council’s decision has sparked calls from some Nigerians for the judges’ prosecution to serve as a warning to others.
However, opinions among Senior Advocates of Nigeria remain divided on the matter.
Former chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, argued that the NJC’s decision to retire the judges was sufficient.
He stated, “I think that punishment is enough. You know the disgrace and the shame of being exposed for falsifying age and then being retired compulsorily? Some punishments are even worse than prison because these are people of great importance in their various circles and societies. I think that punishment is enough, but as I said, I think we should give the new CJN a chance. I am going to personally do that.”
Supporting this stance, Lekan Ojo, SAN, highlighted the context of the offence. “In my view, after asking them to go on compulsory retirement and refund the excess money they might have collected, those two things are appropriate,” he noted.
Ojo added that prosecution would depend on whether falsification involved criminal elements such as affidavits or was merely a clerical issue, such as filling out forms inaccurately.
Conversely, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, endorsed the NJC’s decision but expressed reservations about its adequacy.
“I cannot question the decision of the NJC since they made the decision based on the facts before them,” he said.
Another senior lawyer, Kunle Adegoke, criticized the NJC’s approach as insufficient and advocated for stricter measures.
“The punishment is not enough. The temple of justice is a place where integrity is prioritised, and I believe that to deter others from repeating the same, the punishment should be stiff. The NJC putting them on compulsory retirement is good, but they will still be entitled to pension. So I think prosecuting for such an offence will scare others from repeating the same,” Adegoke stated.
The debate underscores a broader conversation on accountability and integrity within the judiciary, with opinions split between leniency and strict enforcement of the law.
