Court Bars Executive Arm From Controlling Judiciary Funds

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered that the judiciary should henceforth take control of its budgeting without the influence of the executive arm of government.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed in his ruling declared unconstitutional the practice of sending the judiciary’s annual budget estimates to the budget office of the executive arm of government or any other executive authority.

The court ordered that, henceforth, the budget of the judiciary would be prepared by the National Judicial Council and would no longer be “part of the estimates to be included in the Appropriation Bill as proposed expenditures by the President as is the present practice”.

Former President of Nigerian Bar Association and senior advocate of Nigeria Mr. Olisa Agbakoba filed the suit challenging the priority of the executive arm handling the budget of the judiciary.

The court in its judgment agreed with the plaintiff, who contended that the manner in which the judiciary’s budget is being appropriated was contrary to the principle of separation of power and the provisions of Sections 81 (2) and Section 84(1), (2), (3), (4), and (7) of the Constitution.

It declared that any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation should henceforth be paid directly in whole to the National Judicial Council for disbursement and never again through the budget office of the executive arm of government.

The court stressed that the continued dependence of the judiciary on the Executive Arm of government for its budgeting and release of funds was directly responsible for the present state of under-funding of the judiciary, corruption, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure and low morale among judicial personnel.

According to Justice Mohammed, “It is beyond doubt that funding of the judiciary is provided for and guided by the constitution. The practice whereby the Minister of Finance control funds meant for the judiciary clearly offends the provisions of the constitution and undermines the financial independence of the judiciary.

“Times without number, budgetary estimates for the judiciary are being tampered, and this affects the dispensation of justice in the country.

In this regards, the words of sections 81(2) and section 84(1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, are very clear and devoid of ambiguity and should therefore be accorded its ordinary meaning.

“Consequently, the provision of the constitution in sections 81 and 84 of the constitution involving the funding of the judiciary should be given the ordinary meaning.  It is also worth mentioning that the constitution established the principle of separation of powers.

“Taking a look at the prolonged practice where the Ministry of Finance which is under the executive approve the funds to be given to the Judiciary I asked myself, is the Judiciary also a Ministry, agency or department under the Executive? If so, why then did the constitution provide for separation of powers?

“I am unable to find any provision in the constitution that makes the judiciary financially subservient to the Executive. Checks and balances do exist but that does not in any way amount to control.

“That the practice had been going on for a while does not make it legal. If the National Assembly does not submit its budget estimate to the Executive, why then should the Judiciary be made to do so?

“Section 1(1) of the constitution underscores the importance and binding effect of the constitution which is supreme.

“The constitution does not recognize the practice of the judiciary submitting its annual budget to the Executive for approval and the court has the powers to arrest such unconstitutional act.

“In the final analysis, this court has found merit in the plaintiff’s suit and I hereby grant all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.  That is the judgment of this court” the Judge ruled.

Earlier, the court dismissed all the preliminary objections that were raised against the suit by the National Assembly which challenged the locus-standi of the plaintiff to institute the action.

The National Assembly which was joined as the 3rd defendant in the suit had in its preliminary objection sought the dismissal of the suit on grounds that it was incompetent and also constituted an abuse of court process.