ABUJA – A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja,
Monday, held that in line with 81(2) and section 84(1),
(2), (3), (4) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution, as
amended, the President, has no power to approve
funds for the remuneration, salaries, allowances and
recurrent expenditures of the judiciary.
The Court maintained that such funds are
constitutionally guaranteed charges (or “First Charge”)
on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation.
Delivering judgment in a suit that was filed by a former
President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Chief
Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, Justice Ahmed Mohammed,
directed that henceforth, funds belonging to the
judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund should be
released to the National Judicial Council, NJC, in full,
for disbursement for the needs of the various courts
across the federation.
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.
“It is a cardinal principle in law is that clear words of a
statute should be given its ordinary meaning.
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.
Describing the plaintiff as “a busy-body and
meddlesome interloper”, the National Assembly, argued
that the suit was an invitation to anarchy, saying it
was nothing but an attempt a by one arm of
government to stop another arm from performing its
constitutional duty.
It further challenged the jurisdiction of the court to
hear the matter, adding that the plaintiff failed to prove
that his constitutional rights were impugned upon or
showed any legal injury he sustained as a result of the
budgetary system for the judiciary.
Besides, the National Assembly told the court that the
case was capable of resulting into a constitutional
crisis in Nigeria, just as it contended that the Revenue
Mobilization and Fiscal Allocation Commission,
RMFAC, ought to have been joined as a party to the
suit.
However, Agbakoba maintained that as a tax payer in
Nigeria and a Senior Advocate, he had sufficient
interest to file the suit in order to protect the
constitution.
He argued that the suit was for the court to interpret
relevant sections of the constitution.
Meantime, while dismissing all the objections
yesterday, Justice Mohammed stressed that every tax
payer in Nigeria has sufficient interest to approach the
court to enforce the law.
“I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in
the peculiar nature of the case, the plaintiff has the
locus-standi to institute and maintain this action
“The plaintiff has shown prima-facie that the suit is
not frivolous. He has disclosed a reasonable cause of
action”, the Judge held.
Aside the National Assembly, the Federal Government
and the NJC were also joined in the suit as 1st and
2nd defendants respectively.
Specifically, Agbakoba had in his bid to secure
financial autonomy for the judiciary, prayed the court
to among other things, determine whether by section
81(2) and section 84(1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of the
1999 Constitution, as amended, the remuneration,
salaries, allowances and recurrent expenditures of the
judiciary, being constitutionally guaranteed charges (or
“First Charge”) on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of
the federation, form part of the estimates to be
included in the Appropriation Bill as proposed
expenditures by the President as is the present practice
He equally urged the court to determine whether in-line
with the provisions of the aforementioned sections,
“The NJC ought to send its annual budget estimates to
the Budget Office of the Executive Arm of Government
or any other Executive Authority as is the present
practice; or send the estimates directly to the National
Assembly for appropriation?
Agbakoba contended that besides independent
budgeting, the funds belonging to the judiciary in the
Consolidated Revenue Fund ought to be released to the
NJC in full for disbursement for the needs of the
courts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment