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

Everyone has their meal of the day, and mine happens to be dinner. Having dinner, for me, is a ritual, but one that has evolved over the years.

Back in the day, I would not dare have dinner without first taking my bath. My mother said it was “unclean” to eat before brushing your teeth in the morning and taking your bath; or to have dinner before taking your bath, as if you had just been rescued from the pits or planned to eat with all parts of your body.

I didn’t understand it but asking Mama too many questions was not the way we were brought up. You just did what you were told as you were told – or risked Mama beating sense into your head.

As I grew older and became more independent, I found my way around Mama’s maze of inexplicable rules. I just followed my heart. That included discarding the maternal canon of bathing before dinner; but believe me, I still keep short hair because she said long hair – my own long hair – had the tendency to grow into my mouth.

As for my dinner habit, that has evolved. After a long, exhausting day at work, water-splashing can wait until I have grabbed something to eat. It’s a sacred thing; dinner is a moment of conversation between my hand and my mouth, a responsive journey of discovery as my strength is renewed. 

At this time, I set aside all distractions – except the self-inflicted one of watching the TV perfunctorily – while everything else waits. That was the moment on Monday when my wife chose to strike, when I was most vulnerable.

I ignored her at first, too lost in my sacred ritual to pay attention or even care. But she repeated it: “You’ll have to follow me to the market next time!”

I sent daggers from the corner of my eyes, but they didn’t deter her. Again, she said that I would follow her to the market next time. Why? 

She said if the country didn’t erupt in protest over astronomically high food prices in the next few days, then nothing would move the country ever again. Not famine, not pestilence, not bad governance. Nothing. 

She was as determined to disrupt my moment of pure culinary ecstasy as I was determined not to be distracted.

“Do you know what is going on with prices out there, I mean in the market?”, she asked again.

“What’s going on?”, I replied absent-mindedly.

Then her stream of questions became a torrent, and the torrent, a dam of JAMB-like question and answer. Mackerel, popularly called Titus fish, that was N800 per kilo only last year is now N2,000; a loaf of bread that was N500 is now N700; a measure of garri has gone from N300 to N500; the price of 50kg bag of rice has risen from N18,000 about two years ago to N30,000; the prices of other grains such as corn, millet and guinea corn have doubled, as have prices of spices and vegetables. One bottle of groundnut has gone from N500 to N700.

She was making digestion a bit difficult for me, but somehow, I managed to continue hearing her without listening. 

Then she told me that at the market, after exhausting the money she took from home, she sat down at a shed and began to add up everything she had bought on the suspicion that she may have been swindled. 

She added and subtracted and added and subtracted and multiplied but kept getting the same total. Nothing was missing. Her money was spent. If she wanted to buy anything more, she would need to use the ATM or POS or whatever. But that’s it. She was spent – and so was her money.

But knowing she had told me this kind of story over and over in the past and I didn’t pay attention, she made up her mind this time that only a spousal rebellion would get my attention: she is happy to go to the market any day, but I would follow her and pay as she shops!

At this point, she got my attention. Not in form of compliance yet, but by way of explanation. I was getting to the end of my dinner and could now think and see more clearly. I explained that what is happening in the market is not an accident. Inflation doesn’t just happen; it doesn’t come without notice. 

Often, it’s the invited guest of poor monetary and fiscal management, among other things. If money supply is too far ahead of the ability of producers to keep up with the supply of goods and services, inflation sets in, although at different degrees on different price fronts. 

But in the market, this English does not substitute the price of fish. Nor will it quell domestic rebellion. But here is what has happened. An agrarian economy like ours is particularly vulnerable to price inflation. When the farms are hit, everything goes haywire. 

In the last couple of years, farming has been a particularly risky venture because of rising insecurity and deadly conflicts between farmers and herders. Only on Monday, for example, the press reported that 50,000 farmers in 13 villages in Nasarawa State had been displaced by herdsmen some of who also complained that Boko Haram had displaced them and rustled their cows. 

The International Crisis Group reported that since January 2018 when country-wide violence escalated, 300,000 people have fled their homes. If you add that to the disruption by the COVID-19 pandemic and the radical escalation of violence this year that has left scores dead, then you’ll begin to understand why one finger of bell pepper which sold for N200 last year has nearly doubled.

And, while food prices have risen, wages and salaries have remained stagnant or have been significantly cut down in a number of cases, again following the impact of the pandemic. The remnant of a fragile middle class is now buried under a deluge of desperate text messages for help with assorted account numbers attached.

As my wife raged about prices gone out of control, I wondered what Marie Antionette, the wife of Louis the XVI, infamously maligned for stoking the French revolution would have done if she were alive today and a Nigerian queen. 

On the verge of the French Revolution when prices were out of control, Antionette was mischaracterised as telling the French to eat cake, if they couldn’t afford bread. With prices of flour and baking powder beyond reach, Antionette might have advised Nigerians, a very religious lot, to eat prayers.

But it’s not funny. Not a laughing matter at all, except if you work in Aso Rock where the food budget was steady at roughly N150m in 2019 and 2020, and is up by about 30 percent (N195m) this year or in any of the 36 state government houses where appropriation for food has defied inflation.

The whole point of Monday’s disruptive dinner table conversation was to get me to pay more for food. I had hoped that my clever economics would buy me an escape route, a reprieve. But it didn’t work. Nor did my subsequent attempt to improvise another topic by sweeping the matter under the rug. 

I’m not sure I’m prepared to follow anyone to the market yet; not even if they invented #FollowMeToTheMarket. I might as well accept an invitation to my own funeral. Right now, I’m quite busy – watching market forces, keenly aware that in domestic affairs, what goes up stays up. 

•Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

By Sonnie Ekwowusi

It is a pity that over the years Nigeria has been moving in a concentric circle with little or no progress. Same vomit. Same faultlines. Same road travelled. Same judiciary workers’ strike. Same disobedient of court orders by State governors. Same injustices. Same woeful stories. Same everything. Nothing has changed. Who would have thought six years ago that the judiciary workers would be staging another strike in 2021 to press home their demand that State governors should obey constitutional provisions and court judgments and grant financial autonomy to the judiciary? But that is the reality unfolding before our eyes today. The ongoing indefinite nationwide strike of the Judiciary workers of Nigeria under the aegis of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) results from the stiff-necked and stubborn refusal of State governors to obey the constitutional provisions and court judgments granting financial autonomy to the judiciary at both the state and federal levels. In essence, the ongoing judiciary workers’ strike is a strike against governors’ lawlessness.

Why the same vomit year after year? You will recall that in 2013 both JUSUN and Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN had, in their respective suits, dragged the federal government, state governments and others to court over the non-affirmation of the constitutional provisions on fiscal autonomy for the judiciary both at the federal and state levels in pursuant to sections 81(3), 161 (9) and 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution, In their respective considered judgments, the courts ruled in favour of both JUSUN and Agbakoba, to wit, that the federal and States governments should obey the constitutional provisions and grant financial autonomy to the judiciary. Specifically in its judgment in the suit filed by JUSUN, Justice Adeniyi Ademola had on January 13, 2014 held that the provisions of Sections 83(1), 121(3) and 162(9) of the Constitution remained sacrosanct, unassailable and unambiguous and therefore both the federal and State governments should comply with the aforesaid sections of the Constitution. In fact Justice Ademola said in that judgment: “The Attorney General of the Federation and the states should act responsibly and promptly to avoid constitutional crisis in this country, by ensuring financial autonomy for the judiciary… having regard to the provisions of sections 81(3), 84(2) (3) (4) (7), 121(3) and 162(9) of the Constitution “funds/amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Federation Account/Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federal and states shall be paid directly to the heads of courts concerned.”

Similarly, in its judgment in one of the law suits filed by Olisa Agbakoba SAN, the court held that by virtue of section 81(2) and Section 84 (1), (2), (3), (4) and 7 of the Constitution 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 does not form part of the estimates to be included in the Appropriation Bill. The court also held that by virtue of the constitutional guarantee of independent funding of the judiciary under Section 81(1), (2) and (3) (C) and Section 84 (2),(3), (4) and (7) of the Constitution, the National Judicial Council (NJC) ought not to send its annual budget estimates to the Budget Office of the executive arm of government or any other executive authority but to send the estimates directly to the National Assembly for appropriation. The court also held that in order to avoid underfunding of the judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, corruption in the judiciary, delays in the administration of justice and judicial services delivery and generally low quality and poor output by the judiciary, any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation ought not to be released to the judiciary in warrants or other means or through the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Budget Office or the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation or any other person or authority in the executive arm but should be paid directly to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for disbursement to the judiciary.

.Expectedly, the State governors have till date refused to obey the aforesaid court orders. In his effort to ensure the implementation of the financial autonomy for the judiciary, President Buhari, in exercise of his power under section 5 of the Constitution which includes affirming the enforcement of the court aforesaid orders on autonomy for the judiciary, had in March 2019 set up the Presidential Implementation Committee on Autonomy of the State Legislature and State Judiciary.. Sequel to the recommendations of the committee President Buhari had on May 20 2020 issued an Executive Order 10 on the implementation of financial autonomy of the state legislature and state judiciary. But in kicking against the Order 10, State governors are accusing the federal government of shirking its constitutional responsibilities to the judiciary and leaving only the State governments to shoulder huge capital and recurrent expenditures on the judiciary which in their view, is a big drain on their finances. Consequently JUSUN had on April 6 2021 embarked on another nationwide strike to press home for financial autonomy for the State judiciary.

The State governors should obey the Constitution and the court orders against them. Fragrant disobedience to court orders is a recipe for anarchy. State governors should be reminded that the judiciary is not an appendage of State governments: it is a veritable third arm of government charged with the gravest responsibility of dispensation of justice. So the rule of law ought to reign supreme above any capricious and arbitrary exercise of governors’ powers. The paradox is that some of these governors now rubbing shoulders with the judiciary became governors through liberal court judgments. Those whose palm kernels have been cracked for them by a benevolent spirit should not forget to be humble. At the time of writing, the court gates were still locked. Sad. The closure of courts is tantamount to closure of justice. But justice cannot be in limbo otherwise there would be reign of anarchy and mayhem in the country. With the courts completely shut down, many aggrieved persons might resort to violence, intimidations, extra-judicial killings or other nasty forms of self-help in the settlement of their civil disputes. Most cases pending in courts especially the cases of awaiting-trial-inmates and suspects in police custody are stalled.

Having said this, JUSUN should learn to sheath the sword. Agreed, strike is a legitimate weapon of collective bargaining. However, JUSUN should be reminded that the use of this weapon each time there is a breakdown in dialogue between JUSUN and the government is unacceptable. Continuous dialogue that does not disrupt court activities is the bedrock of successful trade unionism. This is because dialogue creates the enabling environment for the settlement of disputes no matter how intractable such disputes might appear to be. By embarking on a series of strikes over the years, JUSUN has succeeded in denying litigants including JUSUN members access to justice in our courts. Justice delayed is justice denied. On the other hand, State governors should learn to obey court orders. Any society bereft of the Rule of Law is heading for anarchy. Closure of the country’s courts is an invitation to chaos, disorder, anarchy and doom.