Clipped wings.

THE incumbent government's move to unilaterally relieve the chief justice's office of two important discretionary powers cannot be condoned. To be clear, there is nothing repugnant in the changes being sought.

In fact, it has been a long-held opinion in the legal community that the chief justice's suo motu powers ought to be regulated to prevent wanton invocation, and that benches formed to hear important cases should be more inclusive to reflect the diversity of thought within the Supreme Court.

However, the manner in which these changes are being introduced - rather, enforced on the superior judiciary - is problematic and likely to have long-lasting repercussions for the trichotomy of powers envisaged under the Constitution.

The most the government ought to have done at this point was forcefully request the superior judiciary to urgently convene a forum where they could settle the matter amongst themselves.

There is also the question of optics. It should be noted that the 'amendments' bill was slipped into an ongoing session of the National Assembly through a supplementary agenda after its unusually prompt approval by the federal cabinet. The government then seemed to be in a hurry to have it approved by all relevant quarters so that it could be enacted into law post-haste.

The urgency with which the legislation was moved would suggest the government was never really interested in any considered debate and deliberation on it.

There was also the question of timing: it was strange that the government sprang into action with a legislative proposal so quickly after the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT