By Ebere Agozie, Abuja
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has moved to correct the record and quell public speculation, stating emphatically that it has not yet taken a final decision on the appointment of 62 legal practitioners as judges of the Federal High Court. This clarification comes in response to widespread media reports that suggested a significant number of candidates had been disqualified.
In an official statement released on Thursday in Abuja, the Secretary of the NJC, Malam Ahmed Saleh, labeled the circulating reports as a misrepresentation of the ongoing appointment process. He specifically refuted claims that 34 lawyers were dropped due to a failed “integrity test,” calling such narratives unauthorized and inaccurate.
“The reports that 34 of the lawyers failed an integrity test and were dropped from consideration for appointment were unauthorised by the NJC,” Saleh stated. “No decision or action has so far been taken by the Council in respect of the candidates concerned.”
Deconstructing the Process: FJSC vs. NJC
A key point of clarification from the NJC concerns the distinct roles of two critical bodies in judicial appointments. Saleh explained that all qualification processes referenced in the earlier media reports—including initial screenings, written examinations, and the handling of preliminary petitions—took place entirely at the level of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC).
The FJSC acts as the first filter, shortlisting candidates based on set benchmarks before recommending them to the NJC for the final stages of scrutiny and interview. This layered system is designed to ensure rigorous, multi-stage vetting.
“A few candidates were discontinued at the FJSC stage due to adverse findings arising from petitions submitted to the commission,” Saleh elaborated. “Others did not progress further because they failed to attain the required qualifying score to move to the interview stage before the NJC.”
He stressed that there is no standalone “integrity test” that resulted in the bulk disqualification of candidates. Instead, the process is a structured amalgamation of written exams, performance benchmarks, thorough background checks, and the consideration of any petitions, all culminating in interviews conducted under established guidelines.
Safeguarding Reputations and Process Integrity
The NJC expressed deep concern that the premature and incorrect information could mislead the public and unfairly damage the professional reputations of candidates who participated in the process in good faith. The council emphasized that the confidentiality of such processes is paramount to protect applicants and maintain the integrity of the selection.
In a significant move, Saleh revealed that the NJC has commenced internal investigations to identify the source of the unauthorized press statement. The council pledged to take appropriate disciplinary steps to prevent future breaches and safeguard the credibility of its procedures.
Concluding the statement, the NJC reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, fairness, and due process, while appealing to media practitioners to seek clarification through authorized channels before publishing reports on sensitive institutional matters. The final decision on the appointment of the Federal High Court judges remains pending before the council.
Edited by Ismail Abdulaziz
