The Federal High Court has clarified that Justice Simon Amobeda did not ignore a transfer order, confirming that he is still serving in the Kano Division under official directive.
This clarification comes following media reports on October 30, which alleged that Justice Amobeda defied a posting order and refused to leave Kano for Kogi State, sparking confusion over the status of his assignment.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Federal High Court’s Director of Information, Dr. Catherine Oby Christopher, firmly denied the report’s claims.
She explained that although Justice Amobeda was initially assigned to Lokoja, Kogi State, he was later instructed to remain in the Kano Division.
The statement highlighted that the decision to retain Justice Amobeda and other judges in their current divisions was an administrative move by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Tsoho.
“Contrary to the report by Sahara, Justice Simon Amobeda remains one of the judges serving in the Kano Division of the Court,” Dr. Christopher clarified.
She further stressed that Justice Amobeda’s assignment is not a matter of personal defiance but an official directive made through a formal circular issued by the Chief Judge.
“The recent posting of judges to various divisions of the Federal High Court was communicated in a circular from the Chief Judge, Hon. Justice John Tsoho, on July 12, 2024,” the statement continued.
According to this circular, Justice Amobeda was initially posted to Lokoja, Kogi State.
However, in a subsequent update dated August 9, 2024, the Chief Judge reversed several of these postings.
Justice Tsoho’s directive ordered Justice Amobeda and six other judges to remain in their then-current locations due to “administrative exigencies.”
Dr. Christopher explained that this adjustment was made to maintain continuity in the court’s operations, especially for judges handling critical cases in their divisions.
These “administrative exigencies,” as noted in the statement, sometimes require judges to stay in their current locations to manage ongoing cases effectively and avoid disrupting judicial processes.
The statement further named other judges whose postings were similarly reversed.
Hon. Justice M.G. Umar, initially posted from Enugu to Kano, was instructed to stay in Enugu.
Justice R.N. Aikawa, originally moved from Kaduna to Katsina, was retained in Kaduna.
Justice S.M. Shuaibu and Justice Evelyn N. Anyadike, both set to relocate to different divisions, were also directed to stay in their original postings, along with Hon. Justice Isa Adama Dashen, who was retained in Yenagoa rather than moving to Osogbo.
The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Tsoho, holds the authority to make and revise judicial postings as part of his role in managing the court’s operations.
The Federal High Court noted that such decisions are aimed at enhancing judicial administration and are fully within the Chief Judge’s powers.
“Hon. Justice Tsoho, as the head of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, possesses the authority to reverse administrative decisions regarding judicial postings, especially when continuity in case management is crucial to the administration of justice,” Dr. Christopher affirmed.
The Federal High Court emphasized that Justice Tsoho’s decision was made in the interest of case continuity and ensuring that the judicial process is not disrupted due to transfers.
Dr. Christopher urged members of the public to disregard the initial report, describing it as inaccurate and misleading.
She also encouraged journalists to prioritize verification and accuracy in their reporting.
“This clarification has become necessary to clear the alleged reportage surrounding Justice Amobeda’s status and to also demonstrate transparency and accountability in the process of judicial postings,” she said.
This situation has stirred conversation around how judicial postings and transfers work within the Federal High Court system.
Typically, judges are assigned to various divisions across Nigeria as needed, depending on case loads, regional demands, and the court’s strategic needs.
In this instance, the Chief Judge’s decision to reverse certain postings, including Justice Amobeda’s, was part of an administrative strategy rather than a response to individual preferences.
Many legal experts have noted that these reversals are not uncommon and that judges can be reassigned based on factors such as case management demands, security concerns, or resource allocation.
With a judiciary as vast and complex as Nigeria’s, the Federal High Court often faces logistical challenges in ensuring that every region is adequately served.
While postings are meant to ensure a balanced distribution of judicial services across Nigeria, administrative reversals can sometimes create misunderstandings.
In the case of Justice Amobeda, the original report suggesting defiance appears to have overlooked the details surrounding the Chief Judge’s subsequent reversal.
Such misunderstandings, legal observers say, are precisely why the court must communicate these adjustments clearly to avoid public confusion.
