Benefits, dangers of full financial autonomy for judiciary, by SANs
In this report, Vanguard Law & Human Rights harvest reactions of senior lawyers on the benefits and dangers of implementing full financial autonomy for the third arm of government
Respected member of the inner bar, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, an Ibadan-based lawyer, Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN, human rights activist, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, and law scholar, Dr. Wahab Shittu, SAN, are among scores of senior lawyers in the country pushing for full implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary.
The quartet strongly argued that the time is now for the judiciary at the federal and state levels to have the financial capacity to independently provide for the welfare of judges and safeguard their autonomy from executive influence.
Specifically, the senior lawyers are contending that besides the provisions of sections 81(3), 121(3), and 162 (9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which confer financial autonomy on the judiciary at federal and state levels, there have also been several judicial pronouncements reinforcing same, adding that the country can no longer be operated in such a way that the judiciary remains reliant on the executive.
But a senior lawyer and member of the inner bar who pleaded anonymity said that though he does not have any quarrel against the full implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary, he nonetheless said that handing over the judiciary funds to the heads of courts as provided for in the Constitution, may do more harm than good to the integrity of the judiciary.
What the law says about funding of judiciary
Indeed, while Section 81(3) of the Constitution provides that the sum standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid to the National Judicial Council, NJC, for onward transmission to the heads of courts created under Section 6(5) of the Constitution, Section 121 (3) of the Constitution provides that any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary of a state in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state shall be paid directly to the heads of courts concerned.
Similarly, Section 162 (9) provides that any amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the Federation Account shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of courts established for the Federation and States under section 6 of this Constitution.
By analogical deduction, the Constitution vide its provision in Section 121(3), vests the responsibility of funding state courts not listed under Section 6(5) of the Constitution through the head of courts from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state.
There are also a couple of judicial decisions including Supreme Court judgments that reinforced the provisions of the Constitution regarding the funding of the judiciary.
Although the judiciary is better funded presently at the Federal level, full financial autonomy remains an unresolved issue, especially at the state level.
Fresh conversation
The current push by senior lawyers for full implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary was fuelled by the recent controversy that greeted the ongoing effort by President Bola Tinubu to gift 40 housing units, now under construction, to serving judicial officers in Abuja.
Vanguard’s Law & Human Rights reports that the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike who is handling the project, had last month invited the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to flag off the design and construction of the judges’ houses.
The project, located in Katampe, is on a 5.2-hectare land, divided into three sections for three categories of judges in Abuja—Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Federal High Court, and Judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
According to Wike, justices of the Court of Appeal will have 10 of the housing units; justices of the Federal High Court will have another 10 of the housing units while the judges of the High Court of the FCT will have the remaining 20 housing units.
Wike said the project was initiated by President Tinubu’s administration not only to enhance the welfare of judicial officers but also to shield the third arm of government from undue interference and compromise.
Building houses for judges diminishes judiciary independence — Activists
Although few human rights activists including a one-time Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, and renowned columnist, Prof. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, criticized the gesture hours after the project was flagged off, some senior lawyers differed.
The critics argued that the project might be a ploy by the executive to curry the favour of the judiciary, thereby diminishing its independence.
But some senior lawyers including a former Attorney-General of Abia State, Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN; a former Attorney-General of Rivers State, Mr O.C.J Okocha, SAN; a respected member of the inner bar, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN and Professor of Public Law, Yemi Akinseye George, SAN expressed positive views on the matter.
Executive shouldn’t build houses for judicial officers — Falana, SAN
Although the issues had died down momentarily, Femi Falana, SAN, last week resuscitated it, arguing that the judiciary should no longer allow the executive to build houses or buy cars for judicial officers, on the account that it ran contrary to the independence of the judiciary as provided for by relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the extant decisions of the courts.
According to him: “There are no provisions in the law for a Minister of the Federal Capital Territory to gift houses and cars to federal judges whom he has cases in front of. It goes against the financial independence of the judiciary which is enshrined in our constitution.
“If the government wishes to give houses and cars to judges, they can write the National Assembly to make provisions for it and send the funds to the National Judicial Council empowered to appropriate the funds as required,” he said.
Falana urged the federal and state governments to allocate sufficient financial resources in their 2025 budgets to enable the judiciary to independently fund the construction of housing and purchase vehicles for judges.
Falana argued that financial autonomy is essential for preserving the independence of the judiciary, which he believes is currently compromised by executive control.
He highlighted, for instance, a glaring disparity in the treatment of judges compared to other government officials.
According to him, when President Tinubu took office, new SUVs were quietly distributed to members of the Federal Executive Council and the National Assembly.
“In contrast, judges who received replacement vehicles after a decade of service were subjected to public ceremonies where state governors handed over keys,” he said.
This issue, he added, reached a new low when Wike publicly assembled senior judges for the launch of a project to build 40 housing units for judges.
Falana said the gesture diminished the independence of the judiciary even as he reminded legal professionals who supported the executive that the Nigerian Constitution guarantees financial autonomy for the judiciary.
Referring to specific provisions in the Nigerian Constitution, Falana, SAN pointed out that Section 81(3) guarantees direct payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the National Judicial Council, which is responsible for disbursing funds to heads of courts at both the federal and state levels.
Falana consequently urged both the National Judicial Council and the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, to advocate for the full implementation of judicial financial autonomy in the 2025 budget, in strict compliance with constitutional provisions even as he advised the NBA to be ready to challenge any violations of the constitution concerning judicial financial autonomy.
Judiciary must cater to its welfare — Ahamba, SAN
Joining the conversation, an Imo-based member of the inner bar, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN, stated that he is in full support of the call for full financial autonomy for the judiciary at the federal and state levels.
Ahamba also posited he was not in support of the executive building houses for judges or buying cars for them because the grundnorm provides for financial autonomy for the third arm of government.
“There are three arms of government. If the legislature has passed a budget as provided in the constitution, the money should be transferred to the leader of each unit. So, the practice of the executive retaining the money and then making gifts of such facilities to judges is a direct influence on the judiciary.
“I don’t think it is right for the executive to do that. That is why a governor would refer to judges as ‘my judges.’ Whatever the case, they should give it to the judiciary. The judiciary should have a system of distributing it amongst themselves. They have their registrars. They will sit down and decide how to use the fund.
“If anybody goes wrong, then EFCC should go after him. I don’t like the idea of buying vehicles for judges as if the governor is giving the cars to the judges or the president is donating vehicles to individuals. It is government money. When the executive builds judges’ quarters where judges would live and go after redeployment or retirement, I think there is nothing wrong with that.
“They will live there and go. If you are a judge and you are assigned a house, the day you leave service, you move out. That is okay. But to give them gifts as governors is wrong.”
Full financial autonomy of judiciary inevitabl — Akintola, SAN
For the Ibadan-based silk, Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN, full implementation of financial autonomy of the judiciary in the country, is inevitable.
He said: “I am also of the view that there should be full implementation of financial autonomy for the judiciary on the condition that Nigeria would go full-scale federal. I must also add that where heads of courts are to be entrusted with the judiciary funds, there should be a body in place to check them other than the National Judicial Council, NJC, otherwise, there would be more trouble for the judiciary.”
Autonomy for judiciary shouldn’t be a subject for debate — Shittu, SAN
Also contributing, Law scholar and renowned prosecutor of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Dr Wahab Shittu, SAN, said under normal circumstances, full autonomy for the judiciary should not call for any debate.
His words: “Full autonomy of the judiciary including its ability to independently fund its operations, infrastructure, and other fundamentals are a desideratum to enhance the quality of justice and preserve its dignity. Ordinarily, this should not be a matter for debate if indeed we prioritise administration of justice.”
Differing slightly on the issue, another member of the inner bar from the Southeast who preferred anonymity told Vanguard that while it is normal that the judiciary arm of government enjoys full financial autonomy like its counterparts—the executive and the legislature, it would be better if the relevant authorities spared judicial officers the responsibility of handling funds.
He said: “There are a lot of allegations of corruption flying around about judges, particularly heads of court now when they are yet to be handling funds. By the time you add that to their powers, the judiciary will be finished.
“Let me not go too far. A past CJN from a particular geo-political zone filled all 9 slots given to his geo-political zone and state of origin with members of his family—son, nephew, blood brothers—and others with people from his town.
“Slots that were meant for a whole geo-political zone, slots that were meant for a whole state, he gave all to his family members and allies in his hometown. If you give such a person powers to give contracts, you can guess what he will do. There are so many of such characters in the system, even in the South East here.”
Vanguard News
