“We fear that the breakdown of law and order is the logical result, especially when we are within a few days to general elections,” said Ade Ipaye, Lagos State Attorney General. “We also fear that the consequence of this strike will outlive the strike period. It will be a precedent on record that striking judiciary workers can shut down the justice system. Local and foreign investors who find this on our records will have no reason at all to trust the efficacy of our justice system.”
The import of the strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) could not have been better put. For three weeks now, the aggrieved workers have not only succeeded in crippling the courts across the nation but also have created a lot of challenges in the administration of justice. The strike is causing untold hardship to many Nigerians particularly those who have businesses or those whose survival revolve around the courts. More poignant is the fact that the 2015 general elections are few days away. In the fallout of the primaries conducted to choose the candidates last month, many aggrieved politicians had reasons to seek judicial redress. But with the gates of our law courts locked against them, such people have effectively been denied justice. Thankfully, the strike has been suspended at the federal level. We urge the states’ judiciary to follow suit.
We find it hard to understand why the authorities cannot readily come to terms with the desirability of financial autonomy for this critical arm of government. Under the current democratic dispensation, the judicial powers of the state are vested in the courts to hear and determine all disputes between individuals and between government and all individuals. But for them to discharge such duty impartially and independently, their autonomy is constitutionally guaranteed. Unfortunately, such independence has been circumscribed by the executive arm of government.
It was in the bid to insulate the judiciary from executive control and influence that Section 81 of the 1999 Constitution provides that “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of the courts established for the Federation and the states under Section 6 of the Constitution”. With respect to the judiciary in the 36 states of the federation, Section 121 of the same constitution similarly stipulates that “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State shall be paid directly to the heads of the courts concerned.”
Even when the letter and spirit of the provisions of the constitution are quite clear, there has been reluctance on the part of the executive to recognise and respect the financial independence of the judiciary. Disturbed by the development, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, approached the Federal High Court last year to have a judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions of the constitution on financial independence for the judiciary.
In upholding the submissions, the presiding judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed, held that “the present practice of judiciary funding by the defendants, which makes the judiciary dependent on the executive arm in budgeting and release of funds, violates sections 81(2)(3)(c) and 84(2)(7) of the Constitution.” In consequence, the judge ordered that money belonging to the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund should henceforth be fully paid directly to the National Judicial Council.
It is the inability to implement the judgment that has led to the current impasse which is a serious threat to peace and prosperity. However, given the sensitivity of this period, we call on the union and the states to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
