The judgment delivered on the financial independence of the judiciary arm of government by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, last week has elicited commendations from some legal luminaries. AMEH EJEKWONYILO reports
Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court Abuja, last week declared as unconstitutional, null and void, the practice by which the executive arm government disburses budgetary funds to the judiciary.
A constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Olisa Agbakoba SAN, had dragged the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (1st defendant), the National Judicial Council (2nd defendant) and the National Assembly (3rd defendant) to court, challenging the constitutionality of allowing funds meant for the judiciary to pass through the executive arm of government.
Agbakoba argued that the practice was in breach of constitutional provision as enshrined in Sections 81 (2) (3) (c) and 84 (2) (7) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Delivering judgment on the suit which the Federal Government had opposed for lack of locus standi (right to sue), abuse of court process and no cause of action, the court said it would not hesitate to grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Justice Mohammed declared that, “the present practice on judiciary funding by the defendants, which is dependent on the Executive Arm in budgeting and release of funds is in violation of Sections 81 (2) (3) (c) and 84 (2) (7) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and therefore unconstitutional, null and void”.
Hence, the court granted an order of perpetual injunction against the defendants from all practices on judiciary funding which run contrary to Sections 81 (2) (3) (c) and 84 (2) (7) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), to submit judiciary’s estimates to the Executive instead of directly to the 3rd defendant (NASS) and release of the judiciary’s fund in warrants by the Executive instead of directly to the 3rd defendant for disbursement.
It further granted a “consequential order restraining the 1st defendant (AGF) and 3rd defendant (NASS) from appropriating the funds for the judiciary in the Annual Appropriation Act”.
More so, Justice Mohammed declared that the continued dependence of the judiciary on the Executive Arm, represented by the AGF for its budgeting and funds release is directly responsible for the present state of under-funding of the judiciary, poor and in adequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial services delivery etc.
In addition, the court declared that by virtue of Section 81 (3) of CFRN 1999, “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the consolidated revenue fund of the Federation ought not be released to the judiciary in warrants or other means through the Federal Ministry, Budget office, the office of the Accountant General of the Federation or any other person or authority in the Executive Arm as is the present practice, but to be paid directly in whole to the NJC for disbursement. Finance
The judge equally declared that, “by virtue of the constitutional guarantee of independent funding of the judiciary under Section 81 (1), (2), (3) (c) and Section 84 (2) (3) (4) and (7) of CFRN 1999, the NJC ought not to send its annual budget estimates to the budget office of the Executive Arm of government or any other Executive authority as presently the practice but ought to send the estimates directly to the NASS for appropriation.
Justice Mohammed also gave a directive that the NJC shall prepare the judiciary’s annual estimates as charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation and submit it to the Accountant General of the Federation for constitutional transfer to the NJC.
It was in this regard that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) through its President, Mr. Okey Wali (SAN), lamented the ever dwindling budgetary provisions of the judiciary.
He said: “From the 2014 Appropriation Bill, the sum of 68 billion naira was allocated to the judiciary from N159 billion budget estimates submitted by the judiciary. This is in spite of the fact that the Bar and even most extraordinarily, the Bench, have repeatedly cried out against the dwindling budgetary allocations to the judiciary in the last four years. From N95 billion in 2010 to N85 billion in 2011, to N75 billion in 2012 and N67 billion in 2013. The government just does not care, even with the approaching 2015 general elections and the so much anticipated pre and post election litigation.”
Reacting to the judgment, a human rights activist and constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), lamented a situation where by the judiciary goes cap-in-hand to the executive in search of funding.
“The executive arm of government becomes a medical doctor that carries surgical equipment to cut the judiciary budget down, and then carry it to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly will again cut down; that is why you judiciary budgetary provisions declining yearly rather than increasing while the other arms’ budgets are increasing geometrically. The executive has no business with the budget of the judiciary as an arm of government.”
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) noted that the judgment would enable the judiciary to be more effective in carrying out its functions.
Chief Ozekhome further said: “The best thing is to let the judiciary carry its budget straight and direct to the National Assembly and defend it. Whatever they get is what will be given to them. If they defend their budget physically, it will be better done.”
