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.
