Amendment of Lagos Magistracy Law: Why law officers also deserve 5-years extension
By Henry Ojelu
LAGOS — Behind the controversy trailing the proposed amendment of the Lagos State Magistrates’ Court Law, 2015, is a policy question that goes beyond the proposed extension of the retirement age of Law Officers from 60 to 65 years like the Magistrates
Findings by Vanguard show that the proposal is linked to a broader policy of harmonising the conditions of service of Law Officers in the Lagos State Ministry of Justice with those applicable to Magistrates in the Judiciary, a policy that had already received government approval and partial implementation.
The discovery raises a fundamental question: Is the proposed five-year extension a new privilege for Law Officers, or the completion of a policy already approved and being implemented by the Lagos State Government? Documents and the history of the policy indicate that the latter provides the stronger explanation.
The Harmonization Policy in Lagos State received approval in October 2021. Implementation subsequently commenced, with State Counsel receiving Security and Insurance Allowances like the Magistrates and were expecting Responsibility Allowance.
The significance of the harmonization cannot be overstated. It means that the principle of parity between State Counsel and Magistrates was not conceived for the current amendment of the Magistrates Law. The state government had already accepted the policy and commenced implementation. What is before the House of Assembly is therefore substantially a question of how to complete and institutionalise the harmonization arrangement which includes the retirement age of Magistrates and Law Officers.
The history leading to the current amendment of the Magistrates Law dates back to 2023, when the retirement age of High Court Judges was increased from 65 to 70 years pursuant to a constitutional amendment.
Although the amendment was intended to extend the judicial careers of serving High Court Judges, it inadvertently created a significant institutional consequence for Chief Magistrates and Law Officers in the Ministry, whose statutory retirement age remained 60 years.
Under the previous regime, the retirement of High Court Judges at 65 years was expected to create vacancies which could, in the ordinary course, be filled by suitably qualified and experienced Chief Magistrates and Directors of Law.
The extension of the retirement age of High Court Judges from 65 to 70 years, however, substantially reduced the number of vacancies available on the High Court Bench. Consequently, experienced Chief Magistrates and Directors of Law who would otherwise have been considered for appointment to the High Court were compelled to retire upon attaining the age of 60 years, despite having acquired the requisite experience, competence and institutional knowledge for elevation to the Bench.
The amendment to the Magistrates Law is therefore intended, among other things, to address this unintended consequence and to ensure that the legal and judicial system continues to benefit from the experience and expertise of senior judicial officers and Law Officers, while maintaining an appropriate and sustainable career progression structure within the justice sector.
Those who have backed the proposal include Evans Ufordi, Monday Akasike, Maxwell Udoh and Bamidele Babatunde, who advanced different arguments in support of the proposed extension.
For Akasike, the history of the policy is crucial to understanding the current amendment.
“This is not a policy that started with the present amendment. The government had already approved the harmonisation and implementation had commenced. What is before the Assembly is essentially about giving the policy the necessary legal backing,” he said.
Ufeli argued that the state stands to benefit from retaining experienced Chief Magistrates Law Officers, for the Bench
According to him,”The state cannot afford to lose experienced lawyers overnight when they have spent decades acquiring knowledge of government litigation, policies, legislation and transactions. That institutional knowledge has value and should be preserved where the officer is still capable and useful.”
Udoh, drew attention to the fact that Lagos would not be creating an entirely new system if the amendment is passed.
He opinned, “The idea of harmonising the conditions of service of Law Officers with those of Magistrates is not peculiar to Lagos. Other states have adopted similar legislative frameworks, which shows that there is already a precedent for the policy.”
Babatunde argued that concerns over younger officers could be addressed through proper succession planning
The controversy appears to have been fuelled partly by the description of the proposal as a special five-year extension for lawyers in the Ministry of Justice. But the underlying policy is broader.
Law Officers are not seeking to become Magistrates, nor are they claiming to perform identical functions. Magistrates exercise judicial powers. State Counsels, on the other hand, perform executive legal functions that are indispensable to the administration of justice. The distinction between the two cadres is therefore clear. So is their interdependence.
Rejecting harmonisation within the justice sector simply because other professionals in the Public Service will not benefit will amount to throwing out dirty water with the baby. This is a policy already recognised and implemented in other part of Nigeria
Abia State enacted the Law Officers Harmonization with Magistrates Law, 2008, providing for the salaries and conditions of service of Law Officers to correspond with those of Magistrates in equivalent posts.
Kogi State has also legislated on harmonisation of the conditions of service of Law Officers with Magistrates and specified judicial offices.
Benue State operates under its Legal Officers (Harmonization of Conditions of Service with Magistrates, etc.) Law, while Imo State has a similar legal framework. Kwara State has also operated harmonisation arrangements involving Law Officers and Magistrates. The principle is therefore neither unique to Lagos nor without legislative precedent.
Why the Magistrates’ Law?
The most serious institutional question concerns the vehicle for the proposed amendment. Why should conditions of service for Law Officers be dealt with through an amendment to the Magistrates’ Court Law?
At first glance, the objection appears logical because Law Officers belong to the Ministry of Justice, while Magistrates belong to the Judiciary.
But the legislative connection becomes clearer when the purpose of the amendment is understood.
The Magistrates’ conditions of service provide the benchmark against which corresponding Law Officer benefits are being harmonised. The Assembly can, however, address concerns about the drafting of the amendment.
The post Amendment of Lagos Magistracy Law: Why law officers also deserve 5-years extension appeared first on Vanguard News.