The Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State has inaugurated a six member committee saddled with the responsibility of making rules for the state Judicial Service Commission, SJC.
The inauguration which took place in the Chief Judge’s conference room on Thursday, had five of the six members in attendance while the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Uko Essien Udom (SAN), member, were absent.
The Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom, who is the chairman of the state JSC, also serves as the chairman of the Rules Committee while Enefiok Essien Esq. the Executive Secretary of the state JSC also double as the Secretary of the committee.
Other members are, Imowo Okpokpo Esq. member iv, Judicial Service Commission, Emmanuel O. Akpan Esq. lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Uyo, and Christopher Udo Emmanuel Esq. former executive secretary, Judicial Service Commission, Uyo.
Justice Ekaete Obot in his inaugural address disclosed that since the creation of Akwa Ibom State, “the State Judicial Service has not made its Rules. It relied on the State Civil Service Rules to conduct its affairs.”
This reliance, his lordship said is inappropriate for two main reasons, explaining that “the Judicial Service with officers and offices with special nomenclatures are not captured by the State Civil Service Rules. Offices such as Dispute Resolution, for instance, is unknown to the State Civil Service Rules.”
” Secondly, there is no well defined Rules in the State Civil Service Rules peculiar to the operation of State Judicial Service.”
As noted by the Chief Judge during the opening of the 2025/2026 legal year on September 15, 2025; states such as Nasarawa, Anambra, Osun, and Lagos have made their Rules, while others are in the process of reviewing their Rules.
The Chief Judge said it was time for Akwa Ibom State to come to terms with the trend rather than ignore it, emphasizing that the Conference of Secretaries held in Lagos in July 2025, through its communique, directed “all Judicial Service Commissions/committees to fashion out regulations for the conduct of their affairs, and should use the model of the Federal Judicial Service Commission as a guide, but with modifications to suit their peculiarities.”
