By Habeeb Ibrahim
The Lagos Advocacy Group has kicked against the inclusion of Law Officers in the proposed amendment to the Magistrates’ Court Law of Lagos State, describing the move as unconstitutional and a threat to the separation of powers.
The group made its position known in a statement signed by its Convener, Comrade Yakubu Eleto, ESQ, who is also the Publicity Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, Epe Branch.
The statement followed a press release by the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr Lawal Pedro, SAN, which was circulated on social media on Monday.
The group disputed the Attorney-General’s description of the proposed amendment as a Private Member’s Bill sponsored by Hon. Ladi Ajomale, Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, Public Petitions and LASIEC.
According to the group, Ajomale did not mention Law Officers while introducing the Bill and making submissions on the floor of the House.
It similarly said Hon. Bonu Solomon Saanu, who spoke on the matter, did not include Law Officers in his submissions.
The group said video recordings of the lawmakers’ statements were available online and urged them to clarify the issue in the interest of legislative integrity.
The controversy also centres on the proposed extension of the retirement age of Law Officers and the argument that their conditions of service should be harmonised with those of Magistrates.
The advocacy group argued that the Magistrates’ Court Law is specifically concerned with Magistrates and Magistrates’ Courts, questioning why Law Officers, who operate under a different legal framework, should be incorporated into the legislation.
It further challenged the claim that the amendment would harmonise the conditions of service of Magistrates and Law Officers.
The group cited what it described as an existing disparity involving Law Officers who move from the Ministry of Justice to the Magistracy.
It alleged that an officer who had attained Grade Level 13 or 14 at the Ministry of Justice could be placed on Grade Level 10 after being appointed to the Magistracy.
According to the group, such a situation defeats the argument that the proposed amendment would achieve harmonisation, as an officer’s previous grade, experience and years of service could effectively be disregarded.
The group also questioned why the Lagos State Executive did not introduce the proposal as an Executive Bill if extending the retirement age and improving the welfare of Law Officers were government priorities.
It further rejected comparisons with similar legislation in other states, arguing that the existence of such laws elsewhere should not be used to justify provisions it considers unconstitutional in Lagos.
“Magistrates and Law Officers, appointed under different laws, to serve separate arms of governments should maintain their clear distinction,” the group said.
The group also disputed the Attorney-General’s reference to the harmonisation of salaries and allowances between State Counsel and Magistrates, arguing that the adjustment was achieved through government policy rather than legislation.
It maintained that Law Officers deserve improved salaries, allowances and other welfare packages but said such benefits should not be tied to the proposed amendment of the Magistrates’ Court Law.
The Lagos Advocacy Group called on the Lagos State House of Assembly to remove provisions relating to Law Officers from the Bill and uphold the independence of the Judiciary from the Executive.
It also urged the Attorney-General to pursue improvements in the welfare of Law Officers through existing legal and policy mechanisms.
