UN Principles And Financial Autonomy For The Nigerian Judiciary

By John Aku Ambi, Esq

In November 1985 the United Nations General Assembly endorsed
the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The
principles were formulated to assist Member States of the UN in
their task of securing and promoting the independence of their
judiciary. Consequently, governments of UN Member States were
enjoined to respect these principles and accommodate them in their
national laws and practice. Naturally as a Member State of the UN,
Nigeria has taken several steps to ensure the independence of its
judiciary. The most important of these steps, is the insertion of
Section 17(e) into the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended) which guarantees the independence,
impartiality and integrity of the Nigerian judiciary.

The on-going strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria
(JUSUN) has once again brought to the fore the inadequacies of
Nigeria’s federalism, which has been characterised by constituent
parts’ (the States), non-compliance with constitutional
provisions-which often times, are products of Nigeria’s commitment
to international conventions, protocols and treaties. Such actions
or inactions sadly portray Nigeria as a violator of the
international law principle of pacta sunt servanda (a Latin phrase
meaning-agreements must be kept)

JUSUN’s strike which commenced on 6th April 2021 is intended to
press home their demands for the enforcement of financial autonomy
in the judiciary, particularly at the state level. The union is
simply demanding that the executive arm of the government
henceforth (which in most states is the custodian of all funds
generated by and accruable to all arms and tiers of government)
credit heads of courts with such funds standing to the credit of
the judiciary from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the states and
nothing more. This demand is neither convoluted nor avaricious but
premised on the provisions of Section 121(3) of the Constitution
and the following judicial decisions which unequivocally confirmed
the autonomy of the judiciary in line with the spirit and letters
of the 1999 constitution: Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria Vs
National Judicial Council and Governors of The 36 States (Suit No:
FHC/CS/667/13), Olisa Agbakoba Vs Federal Government of Nigeria,
The National Judicial Council and The National Assembly (Suit No:
FHC/CS/63/2013) and Olisa Agbakoba Vs Attorney-General Ekiti State
& 2 Others (Suit No: NAD/56/2013)

As a result of these judicial decisions, JUSUN entered into
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the relevant stakeholders,
where the union obtained assurances of the federal and state
governments’ commitment to complying with the judicial
pronouncements. While the Federal Government eventually complied,
the state governments reneged.

On 20th May 2020, President Muhammadu Buhari signed Executive
Order No.10 whose provisions amongst others, provided for the
treatment of funds accruable to state judiciaries as first-line
charge and requiring such funds to be directly paid to the heads of
state courts. The execution of this Order was greeted with a
negative reaction by the state governors who described it as
unconstitutional. Though not holding brief for the union, it is
safe to say that this strike became inevitable as a result of the
inability of these judicial and presidential interventions to
change the stand of the State Governors.

This industrial action by JUSUN has brought renewed focus on the
need for all tiers of governments in Nigeria to keep faith with the
UN General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 of September 1985 and 40/146
of 13 December 1985 which places an incumbent duty on all
governments and institutions in Nigeria to respect and observe the
independence of the judiciary. Member States are equally obligated
to provide adequate resources to enable their judiciaries function
properly. Needless to say, the absence of adequate resources means
an incapacitated and a dependent judiciary. Therefore, the need for
a financially autonomous judiciary cannot be overemphasised.

The Nigerian Governors Forum, after series of meetings with
relevant stakeholders, offered a self-serving concession which
would only see to the monthly payment of certain minimum amounts to
the judiciaries for their operations instead of direct allocations
which is what the constitution envisages. Thankfully this offer was
rejected by the union.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in consonance with the aims
and objects of its constitution which includes the defence of the
independence of the judiciary has resoundingly declared its total
support for the cause of the union. Consequently, it has directed
all branches nationwide to mobilise members and pay visits to state
governors in order to press home the demand for the implementation
of financial autonomy for the state judiciaries.

Borrowing from the biblical injunction in Mark 12:17 where Jesus
Christ, in replying to a hypocritical and mischievous question
asked by the Pharisees and Herodians, enjoined them to ‘Give back
to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’; yours truly
dares to say that it is high time the Nigerian Governors Forum gave
to Caesar what is Caesar’s

John Aku Ambi, Esq, is a legal
practitioner resident in Kaduna

By John Aku Ambi, Esq

In November 1985 the United Nations General Assembly endorsed
the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The
principles were formulated to assist Member States of the UN in
their task of securing and promoting the independence of their
judiciary. Consequently, governments of UN Member States were
enjoined to respect these principles and accommodate them in their
national laws and practice. Naturally as a Member State of the UN,
Nigeria has taken several steps to ensure the independence of its
judiciary. The most important of these steps, is the insertion of
Section 17(e) into the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended) which guarantees the independence,
impartiality and integrity of the Nigerian judiciary.

The on-going strike by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria
(JUSUN) has once again brought to the fore the inadequacies of
Nigeria’s federalism, which has been characterised by constituent
parts’ (the States), non-compliance with constitutional
provisions-which often times, are products of Nigeria’s commitment
to international conventions, protocols and treaties. Such actions
or inactions sadly portray Nigeria as a violator of the
international law principle of pacta sunt servanda (a Latin phrase
meaning-agreements must be kept)

JUSUN’s strike which commenced on 6th April 2021 is intended to
press home their demands for the enforcement of financial autonomy
in the judiciary, particularly at the state level. The union is
simply demanding that the executive arm of the government
henceforth (which in most states is the custodian of all funds
generated by and accruable to all arms and tiers of government)
credit heads of courts with such funds standing to the credit of
the judiciary from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the states and
nothing more. This demand is neither convoluted nor avaricious but
premised on the provisions of Section 121(3) of the Constitution
and the following judicial decisions which unequivocally confirmed
the autonomy of the judiciary in line with the spirit and letters
of the 1999 constitution: Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria Vs
National Judicial Council and Governors of The 36 States (Suit No:
FHC/CS/667/13), Olisa Agbakoba Vs Federal Government of Nigeria,
The National Judicial Council and The National Assembly (Suit No:
FHC/CS/63/2013) and Olisa Agbakoba Vs Attorney-General Ekiti State
& 2 Others (Suit No: NAD/56/2013)

As a result of these judicial decisions, JUSUN entered into
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the relevant stakeholders,
where the union obtained assurances of the federal and state
governments’ commitment to complying with the judicial
pronouncements. While the Federal Government eventually complied,
the state governments reneged.

On 20th May 2020, President Muhammadu Buhari signed Executive
Order No.10 whose provisions amongst others, provided for the
treatment of funds accruable to state judiciaries as first-line
charge and requiring such funds to be directly paid to the heads of
state courts. The execution of this Order was greeted with a
negative reaction by the state governors who described it as
unconstitutional. Though not holding brief for the union, it is
safe to say that this strike became inevitable as a result of the
inability of these judicial and presidential interventions to
change the stand of the State Governors.

This industrial action by JUSUN has brought renewed focus on the
need for all tiers of governments in Nigeria to keep faith with the
UN General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 of September 1985 and 40/146
of 13 December 1985 which places an incumbent duty on all
governments and institutions in Nigeria to respect and observe the
independence of the judiciary. Member States are equally obligated
to provide adequate resources to enable their judiciaries function
properly. Needless to say, the absence of adequate resources means
an incapacitated and a dependent judiciary. Therefore, the need for
a financially autonomous judiciary cannot be overemphasised.

The Nigerian Governors Forum, after series of meetings with
relevant stakeholders, offered a self-serving concession which
would only see to the monthly payment of certain minimum amounts to
the judiciaries for their operations instead of direct allocations
which is what the constitution envisages. Thankfully this offer was
rejected by the union.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in consonance with the aims
and objects of its constitution which includes the defence of the
independence of the judiciary has resoundingly declared its total
support for the cause of the union. Consequently, it has directed
all branches nationwide to mobilise members and pay visits to state
governors in order to press home the demand for the implementation
of financial autonomy for the state judiciaries.

Borrowing from the biblical injunction in Mark 12:17 where Jesus
Christ, in replying to a hypocritical and mischievous question
asked by the Pharisees and Herodians, enjoined them to ‘Give back
to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’; yours truly
dares to say that it is high time the Nigerian Governors Forum gave
to Caesar what is Caesar’s

John Aku Ambi, Esq, is a legal
practitioner resident in Kaduna