Site icon News Central TV | Latest Breaking News Across Africa, Daily News in Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya and Egypt Today.

Donald Duke Defends Position on Oath of Office for Acting CJN

Donald-Duke (News Central TV)

Former Governor of Cross River State, Donald Duke has defended his position regarding the appointment and swearing-in of an Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). The former Governor argued that proper legal and procedural steps must be followed, including the swearing-in and subsequent confirmation process.

Here is his statement issued on August 30:

On the Matter of Oath of Office by the Ag CJN Prior to Confirmation

Recently, excited reactions have trailed my views about the Honourable Ag. Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun being sworn in prior to confirmation by the Nigerian Senate. Firstly, as lawyers, we are trained to perceive divergent views on any given subject and that is the brilliance of the study of the law. Secondly, my views as expressed is purely procedural and not legal and based squarely on common sense.

For the avoidance of doubt, I stand by my view that it is rather duplicitous for an acting appointee, who had earlier taken an oath as a Justice of the Supreme Court and is the most senior justice and therefore in line to be Chief Justice upon retirement or in the absence of the Chief justice, take oath prior to confirmation by the senate and upon confirmation take the same oath again.

Ag. Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere Ekun

Let me remind us, that confirmation by the Nigerian Senate as presently constituted would probably end in “TAKE A BOW”. The entire process needn’t span more than 15minutes as currently administered. Some have said that is how it is done, with reference to similar procedure by predecessor Chief Justices. I insist that doing the wrong thing several times over does not make it right. Further, need I remind us that when Vice President Osinbajo acted as president, he did not take an oath to act. However, should his principal for whatever reason been unable to resume office, then an oath would have been required.

As earlier stated, this is not a legal matter but purely a procedural one which at best should elicit food for thought and not grounds for condemnation for thinking contrary to the norm.

Donald Duke esq

Exit mobile version