Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja — Fresh allegations of corruption and lack of transparency have erupted around the ongoing appointment process for Federal High Court judges, with a group of candidates accusing judicial authorities of manipulating results and shortlists after a computer-based test (CBT) held earlier this year. The controversy has sparked calls for the publication of test scores and intensified scrutiny of how judicial appointments are conducted in Nigeria’s foremost superior court.
The dispute centres on a CBT for prospective Federal High Court judges conducted in September 2025, which candidates say was not followed by full public disclosure of results. Although individual test takers were reportedly able to view their own scores immediately after completing the examination, the Federal High Court and related appointing bodies have not published the comprehensive results list, raising concerns about opacity in the selection process. Critics argue that without full publication of scores, it is impossible to verify whether successful candidates truly met required benchmarks.
Several applicants have alleged that individuals whose names were announced as successful actually performed poorly in the CBT, with some claiming that certain shortlisted candidates scored as low as 25 – 30 per cent on the examination. “After the test was taken, the Federal High Court refused to make the results public although upon the conclusion of the test candidates saw their individual results right away, but for transparency’s sake it ought to be published so that those whose names were published as successful candidates will be seen as successful candidates indeed based on their results,” one aggrieved candidate told reporters.
The allegation has intensified existing concerns about judicial appointments in Nigeria, a subject that has drawn criticism from legal practitioners and civil society groups over the years due to perceived nepotism, cronyism and lack of openness. Historically, the appointment of judges — particularly to superior courts — is guided by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC) under constitutional and regulatory frameworks intended to prioritise merit, competence and integrity. However, candidates and observers say the absence of transparent processes for public scrutiny creates room for undue influence and undermines confidence in the system.
In response to such criticisms, the NJC adopted a policy in 2025 to publish the names of candidates being considered for appointment to Superior Courts of Records for public information and comment, enabling citizens and stakeholders to raise concerns about the integrity and suitability of candidates before final confirmations. This initiative reflects an effort to open up what has traditionally been a closed process and improve accountability in judicial appointments.
Despite this reform, the current controversy suggests that some elements of the process remain opaque. Candidates demanding the publication of CBT results argue that the failure to disclose scores publicly fuels suspicions that networking, connections within the judiciary or political influence — rather than merit — may have played a decisive role in who emerged on the final shortlist. “There is serious concern that some successful candidates were not meritorious but benefited from connections to powerful figures in the judiciary,” one appellant said.
Legal experts note that Nigeria has long faced challenges in judicial appointments, with critics pointing to incidents of nepotism and favouritism in the past. Prior actions by lawyers’ groups — such as petitions against the NJC’s recommendations to the presidency over alleged nepotistic nominations — reflect ongoing tensions between formal appointment guidelines and perceptions of insider influence.
For example, lawyers have historically objected when lists of judicial nominees appeared to include individuals perceived as unqualified or connected to influential figures, urging greater adherence to merit-based criteria and strict compliance with procedural rules. Such concerns have occasionally prompted petitions and legal challenges, although courts have sometimes dismissed such suits on procedural grounds rather than addressing substantive claims of impropriety.
In the midst of the current dispute, candidates have warned that if the authorities fail to publish the CBT results promptly, the National Judicial Council may proceed with approvals and inaugurations of candidates whose legitimacy is contested, potentially eroding public trust in the judiciary. They are calling on both the NJC and the Federal High Court leadership to openly release results, justify the shortlisted list on meritocratic grounds and ensure a fair, transparent selection process that aligns with constitutional principles and public expectations.
The developments arrive at a time when the Nigerian judiciary is under increasing pressure to demonstrate independence and integrity, as public confidence in legal institutions is critical for upholding the rule of law and democratic governance. Observers argue that transparent judicial appointments are essential to maintaining the credibility of the justice system, particularly in high-stakes appointments like those to the Federal High Court.
As tensions persist, stakeholders from the legal community, civil society and prospective candidates themselves are watching closely to see whether the authorities will move to address the transparency concerns raised, publish the contested results and reaffirm commitment to merit-based judicial appointments that inspire confidence both within the profession and among the broader public.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments