This concern is not about the qualifications of the nominees. Indeed, we have publicly defended some of them when they were previously bypassed. Rather, our concern is structural, institutional, and constitutional.
A: A Court Too Large
The SC currently has twelve justices. If all seven nominees are confirmed, the bench will expand to nineteen, making it one of the largest supreme courts in the world. For comparison:
🇺🇸 The U.S. Supreme Court has nine justices.
🇿🇦 South Africa’s Constitutional Court has eleven.
🇰🇪 Kenya’s Supreme Court has seven.
A bench of nineteen raises serious concerns about judicial effectiveness. Larger panels struggle with:
•Coordination and timely deliberation,
• Consensus building,
•Coherent judgments,
• Panel manipulation, and
•Individual judicial accountability.
The likely result is fragmented opinions, delays in decision-making, and a further dilution of institutional clarity at a time when public trust in the judiciary is already fragile.
B. Logistical and Budgetary Constraints
The SC’s physical infrastructure is already overstretched. This expansion raises pressing logistical questions:
• Where will the new justices sit?
• Are there sufficient chambers, clerks, and administrative staff?
• Has Parliament allocated any budget for this sudden enlargement?
Across the country, many judges lack basic research tools and technological support. Courtrooms suffer from inadequate infrastructure. There is no justification for expanding the SC when ordinary judges operate under such dire conditions.
C. The judiciary is chronically underfunded:
• Courts lack access to legal databases and digital case systems,
• Backlogs persist across all levels due to inefficient case management, not a shortage of judges,
• The digitalization of judicial records remains partial and inconsistent.
Rather than expanding the apex bench, GOGO urges a redirection of resources toward judicial infrastructure, training, case automation, and professional support systems—reforms that would directly improve justice delivery for the ordinary person.
D. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right
This latest round of appointments may be an attempt to rebalance the court. But two wrongs do not make a right:
• Stacking the Court to “restore balance,” even if procedurally valid, undermines constitutional integrity.
• It continues a dangerous practice: the use of judicial appointments as a form of political correction, turning the apex court into a battleground for factional interest rather than a beacon of legal stability.
We have thoroughly rejected the Chief Justice’s earlier argument that the bench must expand to twenty justices due to backlog. The true cause of delays is ineffective case management, not the number of judges.
E. Troubling Timing
This expansion also raises red flags of impropriety and timing. The naming of seven justices comes at a moment when the Chief Justice herself is under investigation.
Proceeding with such sweeping appointments under this cloud risks tainting the process with perceptions of impropriety and undermines the credibility of both the nominations and the institution.
GOGO strongly warns against the normalization of political maneuvering in judicial appointments. These practices:
•Erode judicial independence,
• Undermine public confidence, and
•Entrench partisanship on the bench.
F. Conclusion
We do not need a bloated bench. We need a credible, well-resourced, and independent SC.
GOGO calls for restraint, fidelity to constitutional procedures, and a renewed focus on real reform—not symbolic expansion.
The integrity of our judiciary must not be sacrificed on the altar of political expedience or damage control.
Da Yie!
