By Kesiena Igho Oghoghorie
![image](/2020/10/lawreport.jpg")
![image](/2021/06/Legal-Research-On-The-Go2.jpg")
A collective sigh of relief is now audible across Nigeria
following the suspension of the industrial action by the Judiciary
Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) which paralysed judicial activities
across the federation for over two months.
![image](/2021/05/NBASBL2021.jpg")
The industrial action was called by the JUSUN to demand for the
implementation of financial autonomy for the states, as per Section
121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides 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 court concerned.
The Judiciary, clearly, occupies a significant position in the
country, as it is saddled with the role of stabilizing democracy
based on the fundamental principle of state governance. Yet the
judiciary has, sadly, not been up to scratch in carrying out its
constitutional functions, which could be chalked up to its constant
dependence on the executive for funds. Whilst discussing the
present, it is, however, important to relive the battles of the
past, as it will aid in navigating the future.
The circumvention of the Constitutional requirement of
disbursement of funds to the judiciary by the states, over time,
led to several suits filed against the government, and judgments
given in favour of financial autonomy in 2014. These were largely
disregarded, thus leading to the industrial action of January
2015.
The non-compliance with the judgment of the court later led to
the invocation of the Presidential powers under section 5 of the
Constitution, culminating into the Executive Order 10 of May 2020.
The Order made it mandatory for all states in the country to
include the allocations of the judiciary in the first line charge
of their budgets. The order was, however, not implemented following
objection by the state governors on the premise that the President
acted ultra vires his powers. The state of affairs led to the JUSUN
ordering its members to shut all courts in the country from April
6, 2021 to press home its demand for implementation of financial
autonomy for the judiciary.
The government, in response, held several reconciliation
meetings with the leadership of JUSUN aimed at hashing out
resolutions to end the strike, with a Memorandum of Action signed
between the Nigerian Governors Forum, after initial hesitation, and
JUSUN on June 4. The agreement required the state governments,
amongst others, to credit the accounts of each state judiciary with
the pro-rata amount due to them, with the monthly allocations to
the judiciary, in the event of any shortfall, reflecting a
percentage of the appropriated sum or an irreducible minimum amount
to be allocated every month for the purpose of meeting its costs
whichever is higher.
Each state is also required to set up a State Account Allocation
Committee (SAAC) to be given legislative teeth in the various Fund
Management Laws, charged with the responsibility to oversee the
distribution of available resources to the judiciary. Modalities
and timelines for the full commencement of full financial autonomy
at the state level were subsequently drawn up, with agreement
reached between JUSUN and the government, thus leading to the
eventual suspension of the strike on Wednesday 9th
2021.
Yet while the strike may have been suspended, the whole
situation has clearly lit the blue touch for a wider discussion on
the subject. Clearly, one swallow does not make a spring, but the
resolution of the industrial dispute is an indication of a small
flock of birds of good omen hovering around the subject of finacial
autonomy.
The battle for financial autonomy is, clearly, not going to be
achieved on a platter of gold, as whoever wants to make an omelet
will have to break eggs. There is, therefore, the need to create a
long-termist and forward looking framework to deal with the issues
already agreed.
A five-man committee has already been set up by the Judiciary’s
regulatory body, NJC, to monitor the implementation of financial
autonomy for the judiciary in the various states of the federation.
This, indeed, is the right step to take, given that the road up the
mountain is, given the challenges ahead, steep and winding, and
likely to be strewn with obstacles, tricky traps and veiled in a
lot of mist. So what now?
Moving forward, consideration would need to be given to the
report of the Presidential Implementation Committee on compliance
with the Section 121 (3) provisions, as currently obtains at the
federal level, with a view to enthroning uniform modality across
the country.
The concept of ‘autonomy’ would also need to be
reconceptualized, so as to be viewed beyond the lenses of financial
independence. Such move would require broadening its scope to
include other areas such as the mode of appointment, removal,
promotion, discipline, security of tenure in office, of judges, so
as to ensure non-interference from the other arms of government
etc.
The remuneration and welfare of judicial officers should also be
in the mix, given that the salaries of judges were last reviewed a
long time ago under the Certain Political, Public and Judicial
Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc.) (Amendment) Act
2008. This, clearly, has since passed its use-by-date, with the
level of inflation and currency devaluation over the years. Urgent
steps would therefore need to be taken to remedy the situation, so
as to make the remuneration of judges to be in sync with the
current economic realities.
Finally, adequate safeguard would be required to ensure that
“financial autonomy” is not abused or misused. Adequate checks and
internal monitoring tools would therefore need to be created within
the judiciary to ensure the proper utilization of its funds.
These are, clearly, trying times for the judiciary, and the
teething problems are not going to be solved with the same thinking
we used when the problems were created. This is therefore a moment
in history when we have a chance to think outside the box. There is
not just the responsibility to do better for now at least, there is
now the opportunity.
Kesiena Igho Oghoghorie
Policy Writer & Public Affairs Analyst, based in
Abuja
By Kesiena Igho Oghoghorie
A collective sigh of relief is now audible across Nigeria
following the suspension of the industrial action by the Judiciary
Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) which paralysed judicial activities
across the federation for over two months.
The industrial action was called by the JUSUN to demand for the
implementation of financial autonomy for the states, as per Section
121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides 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 court concerned.
The Judiciary, clearly, occupies a significant position in the
country, as it is saddled with the role of stabilizing democracy
based on the fundamental principle of state governance. Yet the
judiciary has, sadly, not been up to scratch in carrying out its
constitutional functions, which could be chalked up to its constant
dependence on the executive for funds. Whilst discussing the
present, it is, however, important to relive the battles of the
past, as it will aid in navigating the future.
The circumvention of the Constitutional requirement of
disbursement of funds to the judiciary by the states, over time,
led to several suits filed against the government, and judgments
given in favour of financial autonomy in 2014. These were largely
disregarded, thus leading to the industrial action of January
2015.
The non-compliance with the judgment of the court later led to
the invocation of the Presidential powers under section 5 of the
Constitution, culminating into the Executive Order 10 of May 2020.
The Order made it mandatory for all states in the country to
include the allocations of the judiciary in the first line charge
of their budgets. The order was, however, not implemented following
objection by the state governors on the premise that the President
acted ultra vires his powers. The state of affairs led to the JUSUN
ordering its members to shut all courts in the country from April
6, 2021 to press home its demand for implementation of financial
autonomy for the judiciary.
The government, in response, held several reconciliation
meetings with the leadership of JUSUN aimed at hashing out
resolutions to end the strike, with a Memorandum of Action signed
between the Nigerian Governors Forum, after initial hesitation, and
JUSUN on June 4. The agreement required the state governments,
amongst others, to credit the accounts of each state judiciary with
the pro-rata amount due to them, with the monthly allocations to
the judiciary, in the event of any shortfall, reflecting a
percentage of the appropriated sum or an irreducible minimum amount
to be allocated every month for the purpose of meeting its costs
whichever is higher.
Each state is also required to set up a State Account Allocation
Committee (SAAC) to be given legislative teeth in the various Fund
Management Laws, charged with the responsibility to oversee the
distribution of available resources to the judiciary. Modalities
and timelines for the full commencement of full financial autonomy
at the state level were subsequently drawn up, with agreement
reached between JUSUN and the government, thus leading to the
eventual suspension of the strike on Wednesday 9th
2021.
Yet while the strike may have been suspended, the whole
situation has clearly lit the blue touch for a wider discussion on
the subject. Clearly, one swallow does not make a spring, but the
resolution of the industrial dispute is an indication of a small
flock of birds of good omen hovering around the subject of finacial
autonomy.
The battle for financial autonomy is, clearly, not going to be
achieved on a platter of gold, as whoever wants to make an omelet
will have to break eggs. There is, therefore, the need to create a
long-termist and forward looking framework to deal with the issues
already agreed.
A five-man committee has already been set up by the Judiciary’s
regulatory body, NJC, to monitor the implementation of financial
autonomy for the judiciary in the various states of the federation.
This, indeed, is the right step to take, given that the road up the
mountain is, given the challenges ahead, steep and winding, and
likely to be strewn with obstacles, tricky traps and veiled in a
lot of mist. So what now?
Moving forward, consideration would need to be given to the
report of the Presidential Implementation Committee on compliance
with the Section 121 (3) provisions, as currently obtains at the
federal level, with a view to enthroning uniform modality across
the country.
The concept of ‘autonomy’ would also need to be
reconceptualized, so as to be viewed beyond the lenses of financial
independence. Such move would require broadening its scope to
include other areas such as the mode of appointment, removal,
promotion, discipline, security of tenure in office, of judges, so
as to ensure non-interference from the other arms of government
etc.
The remuneration and welfare of judicial officers should also be
in the mix, given that the salaries of judges were last reviewed a
long time ago under the Certain Political, Public and Judicial
Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc.) (Amendment) Act
2008. This, clearly, has since passed its use-by-date, with the
level of inflation and currency devaluation over the years. Urgent
steps would therefore need to be taken to remedy the situation, so
as to make the remuneration of judges to be in sync with the
current economic realities.
Finally, adequate safeguard would be required to ensure that
“financial autonomy” is not abused or misused. Adequate checks and
internal monitoring tools would therefore need to be created within
the judiciary to ensure the proper utilization of its funds.
These are, clearly, trying times for the judiciary, and the
teething problems are not going to be solved with the same thinking
we used when the problems were created. This is therefore a moment
in history when we have a chance to think outside the box. There is
not just the responsibility to do better for now at least, there is
now the opportunity.
Kesiena Igho Oghoghorie
Policy Writer & Public Affairs Analyst, based in
Abuja