POOR WELFARE: Judiciary at the Mercy of the Executive and the Legislature

Among the three arms of government, the judiciary is the least
funded. While the executive and the legislature are able to
negotiate better deals for themselves, the judiciary is not so
lucky.

For instance between 2011 and 2015, the 7th National Assembly
had a yearly budgetary allocation of N150 billion. For this period
however, the judiciary got N85 Billion in 2011, N75 billion in
2012, N67 billion in 2013, N68 billion in 2014 and in 2015 when
general elections were held, the sector got N73 billion. This
clearly shows that the judiciary is therefore, left at the mercy of
both the executive and the legislature in terms of funding and
welfare generally. The consequence of this is that it does not get
the resources it needs to deliver on the judicial mandate given to
it by Section 6(1) and (2) of the Constitution to act as the last
hope of the common man.

Granted that in the face of dwindling revenues, shortage of
funds is not only a challenge to the judiciary but also to other
arms of government, but the judiciary is worse off. This is because
it has no leverage in the budgeting process.

It is reported in the cyberspace that Ondo State Governor,
Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SAN, has procured sixteen brand
new 2019 model Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUVs for the use of Judges
and the Chief Judge of the state. This, according to reports, is
coming 10 years of neglect.

The vehicles were received by the Chief Judge of the state, Hon.
Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu, on behalf of the judges at the
Government House, Alagbaka, Akure on Wednesday.

The Chief Judge, who appreciated the Governor for the gesture,
said Judges in the state, including herself, have been using
ten-year-old rickety vehicles before the Governor’s
intervention.

She said: “My colleagues and I have been riding ten-year-old
vehicles hitherto. We have had various experiences of
disappointments in the use of our vehicles.

“If you bring my colleagues here, they will tell you the
various experiences they have had with their vehicles. I want to
thank God for Mr. Governor.

“I want to appreciate this good gesture. We don’t have
feelings of entitlement. Though the regulation says give judges new
vehicles every four years. By this regulation, it’s an entitlement.
But at the same time, we want to appreciate Mr. Governor for not
taking us for granted.” (Underlined for emphasis)

The situation of Oyo state is not peculiar to them. It
represents the experience of judges in other states of the
federation. The manner of appreciation by the Chief Judge is very
unfortunate. It depicts the level judiciary has fallen down to.

It is saddening that contrary to the constitutional procedure
for preparing the appropriation provided in sections 81 to 84 of
the constitution which requires that each arm of government—the
executive, legislature and the judiciary—lays before the National
Assembly its estimates of revenue and expenditure for each
financial year after which it is appropriated, harmonized as a bill
and presented to the President for his assent, the common practice
now is that the executive prepares the appropriation bill while the
legislature passes it into law. The judiciary is then left at the
mercy of the two arms of government. More often than not, the
executive reduces the budget estimates submitted to it by the
judiciary. Sometimes, a sympathetic legislature jerks it up. For
instance, while President Muhammadu Buhari allocated N100 billion
to the judiciary in the budget estimates he submitted to the
National Assembly for 2018 Appropriation Bill, the legislature in
its wisdom increased it to N110 billion. That is N10 billion above
the same N100 billion that was appropriated for the 2017 fiscal
year.

When the budget is finally approved, the executive then decides
how to release it. Sometimes it releases funds for the judiciary on
quarterly, monthly or bimonthly basis without considering the needs
of the judiciary thereby forcing the latter to adjust its plans.
The executive gives to the judiciary what it thinks is right and
not what the judiciary actually needs. Apart from the uncertainty
it creates, releasing funds to the judiciary piecemeal is usually
very frustrating. It makes planning difficult. The funds are
released through warrants by the Budget Office. A subsisting
decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja has declared the practice
unconstitutional in Olisa Agbakoba vs. FG, the NJC & National
Assembly in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013. Justice Ahmed Mohammed
ordered that money belonging to the judiciary in the consolidated
revenue of the federation must be “fully paid directly” to the
National Judicial Council (NJC). In the judgment, Mohammed said:
“The NJC shall prepare the judiciary’s budget as charged upon the
Consolidated Revenue and submit it to the Accountant-General of the
Federation to transfer to NJC.

The NJC, he said, ought not to send its annual budget to the
budget office of the executive arm of government or any other
executive authority as was practiced. He ordered NJC to instead
send its budget directly to the National Assembly for
appropriation.

Mohammed also declared that the dependence of the judiciary on
the executive arm for its budgeting and funding by warrants was
directly responsible for the under-funding of the judiciary.

“This is also responsible for the poor and inadequate
judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel,
alleged corruption in the judiciary, delays in administration of
justice and judicial services,” he said.

In another suit instituted by the Judiciary Staff Association of
Nigeria (JUSUN). Justice Adeniyi of the Federal High Court in Abuja
stopped the Federal Government and the 36 states from withholding
budgetary allocations of the Judiciary. He relied on sections
83(1), 212(3) and 162(9) of the Constitution and held that the said
provisions be complied with.

While the federal judiciary has fared better in terms of funding
and welfare, courts at state level are barely getting. Judges in
some states sit in decrepit court rooms. Facilities that should
make their court rooms comfortable are lacking. Many governors hold
their judiciaries to ransom by refusing to release funds to the
courts in violation of the constitution.

The issue of inadequate funding at the state level is one of the
greatest challenges confronting the judiciary of this nation. The
challenges include lack of manpower development, inadequate
facilities, among many others. Various capital projects embarked
upon by the judiciary across the country are either at a snail
speed or completely abandoned due to non-availability of fund. Even
judicial officers and other court staff do not get their salaries
and allowances on time thereby exposing them to corruption.
Proposed reforms including automation of the judicial process
remain mere ideals with no fund to implement them. The situation is
further compounded as some judges are afraid to deliver judgment
that goes against their governors to avoid being starved of fund.
Many are under perpetual apprehension.

The reality is that many judges are not independent. Though more
responsibilities are being given to the judiciary through many new
enactments, the executive has not deemed it necessary to allocate
more resources to the judiciary. The judiciary needs to be
independent. If things continue as it were, we should not expect
the judiciary to be any better. They will continue to be appendages
of the Executive arm of government and be doing their bidding.

Nairalaw Editorial

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!