Financial Autonomy For State Legislature, Judiciary Non-Negotiable — AGF, Malami

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of
Justice, Abubakar Malami has argued the constitutional provision in
Section 121(3), guaranteeing financial autonomy for the Judiciary
and Legislature at the state level was a non-negotiable right
exercisable by both arms of government.

Malami faulted the arguments that queried the constitutionality
of the Executive Order 10 issued by President Muhammadu Buhari to
further the implementation of the provision of Section 121(3,
contending that the presidential initiative was “designed and
intended to give enforcement spirit to the autonomy provision.”

He said Governors were not averse to enforcement of the
constitutional provision on financial autonomy for state
legislature and judiciary but the seeming disagreement was in
relation to the modality to be adopted in its application, which
was currently being worked out in the series of engagements that
are being held.

Malami, who spoke while featuring on Tuesday on a morning
programme on the government-owned Nigerian Television Authority
(NTA), said: “Generally speaking, the operation, application and
enforcement of laws are a process. With particular reward to the
Executive Order, you have to into account the antecedence. One,
there exists a constitutional amendment, with particular regard to
Section121 (3) of the Constitution that initiated the process.

“In addition to the constitutional amendment, we equally have in
place, the Executive Order 10, signed by the President. Which, in
effect, is designed and intended to give enforcement spirit to the
autonomy as contained in Section 121(3).

“Arising therefrom, there were contentions, particularly on the
part of the governors as to the application and operation of the
provision of Section 121(3) and the Executive Order. And you have,
in that respect, an implementation committee, among others. On the
side of the implementation committee, there have been series of
engagements, which are ongoing. I think, as a process, we are
evolving.

“Nobody is contending about the constitutional amendment having
been in place. Nobody is equally contending about the need for the
Executive Order.

“Nobody is contenting about the fact that there exists the
political will on the part of the Executive, in particular, the
President, about the implementation of the autonomy of the
Judiciary and the Legislature. But then, perhaps, the limited
engagements is about the modalities.

“So, against the background of these processes that are
unfolding, I think the process is indeed, evolving and we are
certainly getting there.

“At the end of the day, the Executive Order has been in place,
the legislative processes associated with its implementation are in
place, and I think the engagement is a product of such process that
will eventually see to the implementation, enforcement and
application of the Executive Order.”

On whether the financial autonomy provisions could be
successfully implemented at the state level under a federal system
of government, Malami insisted that there was no excuse to escape
its implementation at the state level, because an example already
exists at the federal level.

Last week, a constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of
Nigeria (SAN), Sebatine Hon, in a letter to the AGF, Chief Justice
of Nigeria(CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad and other stakeholders in
the nation’s justice sector argued that Executive Order 10 was
illegal.

Hon argued that the “Executive Order 10 is also in conflict with
the express provisions of Sections 6(1), (3)(5) read together with
sections 81(3) and 84(1)(4)(7) of the Constitution. It indeed runs
counter to the very section 121(3) as amended, since, as against
the wrong notion held by Mr President, neither the original text of
that subsection nor its amended version has anything to do with
superior courts of records, even though located in the various
states and acting as state courts.”

Hon added that under “the Presidential cum Federal Constitution
of Nigeria, the states are semi-autonomous, hence the President has
no power, direct or implied, to force down orders on the governors
or to attempt, as was done in Executive Order 10 to run the states
from Abuja or to create some bodies that will run those states (as
in the case of the Presidential Implementation Committee created in
the said Executive Order 10

“The presidential Order 10 signed by Buhari on May 20, 2020, is
unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, it being in
conflict with the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution,” he
said.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of
Justice, Abubakar Malami has argued the constitutional provision in
Section 121(3), guaranteeing financial autonomy for the Judiciary
and Legislature at the state level was a non-negotiable right
exercisable by both arms of government.

Malami faulted the arguments that queried the constitutionality
of the Executive Order 10 issued by President Muhammadu Buhari to
further the implementation of the provision of Section 121(3,
contending that the presidential initiative was “designed and
intended to give enforcement spirit to the autonomy provision.”

He said Governors were not averse to enforcement of the
constitutional provision on financial autonomy for state
legislature and judiciary but the seeming disagreement was in
relation to the modality to be adopted in its application, which
was currently being worked out in the series of engagements that
are being held.

Malami, who spoke while featuring on Tuesday on a morning
programme on the government-owned Nigerian Television Authority
(NTA), said: “Generally speaking, the operation, application and
enforcement of laws are a process. With particular reward to the
Executive Order, you have to into account the antecedence. One,
there exists a constitutional amendment, with particular regard to
Section121 (3) of the Constitution that initiated the process.

“In addition to the constitutional amendment, we equally have in
place, the Executive Order 10, signed by the President. Which, in
effect, is designed and intended to give enforcement spirit to the
autonomy as contained in Section 121(3).

“Arising therefrom, there were contentions, particularly on the
part of the governors as to the application and operation of the
provision of Section 121(3) and the Executive Order. And you have,
in that respect, an implementation committee, among others. On the
side of the implementation committee, there have been series of
engagements, which are ongoing. I think, as a process, we are
evolving.

“Nobody is contending about the constitutional amendment having
been in place. Nobody is equally contending about the need for the
Executive Order.

“Nobody is contenting about the fact that there exists the
political will on the part of the Executive, in particular, the
President, about the implementation of the autonomy of the
Judiciary and the Legislature. But then, perhaps, the limited
engagements is about the modalities.

“So, against the background of these processes that are
unfolding, I think the process is indeed, evolving and we are
certainly getting there.

“At the end of the day, the Executive Order has been in place,
the legislative processes associated with its implementation are in
place, and I think the engagement is a product of such process that
will eventually see to the implementation, enforcement and
application of the Executive Order.”

On whether the financial autonomy provisions could be
successfully implemented at the state level under a federal system
of government, Malami insisted that there was no excuse to escape
its implementation at the state level, because an example already
exists at the federal level.

Last week, a constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of
Nigeria (SAN), Sebatine Hon, in a letter to the AGF, Chief Justice
of Nigeria(CJN), Justice Ibrahim Muhammad and other stakeholders in
the nation’s justice sector argued that Executive Order 10 was
illegal.

Hon argued that the “Executive Order 10 is also in conflict with
the express provisions of Sections 6(1), (3)(5) read together with
sections 81(3) and 84(1)(4)(7) of the Constitution. It indeed runs
counter to the very section 121(3) as amended, since, as against
the wrong notion held by Mr President, neither the original text of
that subsection nor its amended version has anything to do with
superior courts of records, even though located in the various
states and acting as state courts.”

Hon added that under “the Presidential cum Federal Constitution
of Nigeria, the states are semi-autonomous, hence the President has
no power, direct or implied, to force down orders on the governors
or to attempt, as was done in Executive Order 10 to run the states
from Abuja or to create some bodies that will run those states (as
in the case of the Presidential Implementation Committee created in
the said Executive Order 10

“The presidential Order 10 signed by Buhari on May 20, 2020, is
unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, it being in
conflict with the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution,” he
said.