By Chidi Ezenwafor, Esq.
Introduction
Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA) mandates that a judgment creditor must obtain the consent of the Attorney General before attaching funds held by a public officer in an official capacity. This provision aims to safeguard public funds from indiscriminate attachment, ensuring that governmental operations are not unduly disrupted. However, its practical application has been the subject of considerable judicial scrutiny, leading to divergent interpretations by the Supreme Court.
Notably, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Central Bank of Nigeria v. Interstella Communications Ltd & 3 Ors (2018) and CBN v. Ochife (SCN 24/1/25) have presented conflicting perspectives on the applicability and constitutionality of Section 84. Further, the recent case of Inspector General of Police v. Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN (SC/CV/268/2023) has added another dimension to the debate, potentially shaping the future of judicial enforcement against public funds.
This paper seeks to reconcile these judicial positions and propose a framework that balances the protection of public resources with the imperative of enforcing court judgments, aligning with international best practices and constitutional justice.
Analysis of Judicial Positions
1. Central Bank of Nigeria v. Interstella Communications Ltd & 3 Ors (2018):
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) qualifies as a “public officer” under Section 84 of the SCPA. The Court held that when the CBN acts as a banker to the government, it is considered a public officer, and consequently, the consent of the Attorney General is required before initiating garnishee proceedings against funds held by the CBN on behalf of the government.
This decision reinforced the procedural safeguard established by Section 84, emphasizing the need to protect public funds from indiscriminate garnishment. The Court recognized the potential disruption to governmental operations if public funds were freely attached without oversight.
2. CBN v. Ochife (SCN 24/1/25):
In this more recent case, the Supreme Court revisited the issue, particularly concerning the constitutionality of requiring the Attorney General’s consent before executing judgments against public funds. Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, in a partly concurring judgment, questioned whether this requirement unduly interferes with the enforcement of valid court judgments.
She argued that insisting on the Attorney General’s consent could amount to executive interference with judicial processes, raising concerns about the separation of powers and judicial independence. While the other members of the panel did not expressly pronounce on this point, her judgment highlighted the need for judicial efficiency in enforcing monetary judgments, particularly where there is no dispute about the validity of the debt.
3. Inspector General of Police v. Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN (SC/CV/268/2023):
In this case, the Supreme Court further challenged the rigidity of Section 84. The Court held that requiring the Attorney General’s consent as a prerequisite for enforcing monetary judgments against public funds was inconsistent with the constitutional role of the judiciary in enforcing judgments.
The judgment underscored that the State cannot evade its financial obligations under the shield of procedural safeguards. Once a judgment is validly obtained, the government must honor it without unnecessary executive interference. This decision aligns with the reasoning in Ochife, reinforcing the view that Section 84 should not serve as a tool to obstruct the enforcement of judicial decisions.
Notably, having read the judgment of Ogunwumiju, JSC, in Inspector General of Police v. Eko Ejembi Eko, SAN, though not the lead judgment, it is incorrect to argue that it constitutes an obiter dictum. It is a concurring judgment that further espouses and expands on an issue raised in the appeal and, as such, carries the binding force of law. This judgment represents the clear legal position of the Supreme Court on the said issue.
Reconciling the Judicial Positions
The key tension between these cases revolves around two competing legal imperatives:
1. Protection of Public Funds:
• The Interstella decision underscores the necessity of procedural safeguards to prevent the reckless attachment of government funds, which could disrupt essential services and public administration.
2. Judicial Independence and Enforcement of Judgments:
• The judgments in Ochife and Eko Ejembi Eko highlight the danger of affording the executive undue control over judgment enforcement, which risks rendering judicial decisions ineffective.
To reconcile these positions, a balanced and pragmatic approach is required—one that:
• Preserves government functionality and fiscal stability by ensuring that not all government funds are subject to automatic garnishment;
• Prevents executive abuse of power by ensuring that the Attorney General’s consent does not serve as an unnecessary barrier to enforcing valid judgments;
• Aligns with international best practices, wherein court judgments against government entities are enforceable through structured mechanisms that do not require executive approval.
Recommendations and Reform Proposals
To address the concerns raised by these judgments and ensure a just application of Section 84 of the SCPA, the following measures are recommended:
1. Legislative Review and Amendment of Section 84:
• The National Assembly should consider amending the provision to limit the scope of the Attorney General’s discretion, thereby preserving essential procedural oversight without impeding judicial enforcement.
• Introducing a judicial review mechanism would allow courts to override an unreasonable refusal or delay by the Attorney General in granting consent.
2. Clear Guidelines on Execution Against Public Funds:
• Establish defined procedures wherein judgment creditors can enforce debts against government entities without unnecessary delays while safeguarding critical public service funds (e.g., salaries, healthcare budgets) from attachment.
3. Automatic Judicial Oversight in Garnishee Proceedings:
• Empower courts with direct authority to evaluate the impact of executing judgments on government operations, eliminating reliance on executive consent.
• Where necessary, create a special judicial panel to handle garnishee proceedings involving public funds, ensuring both fairness and efficiency.
4. Adoption of International Best Practices:
• Emulate frameworks from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa, which permit the enforcement of judgments against government entities without requiring executive approval.
• Such a model would enhance judicial independence and ensure that valid court judgments are not undermined by procedural technicalities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Interstella, Ochife, and Eko Ejembi Eko illustrate the evolving judicial stance on Section 84 of the SCPA. While safeguarding public funds is undeniably important, it must not come at the expense of judicial independence or the enforceability of court judgments. A balanced legal framework that upholds both fiscal responsibility and the rule of law is imperative.
This paper advocates for a legislative amendment to Section 84, coupled with enhanced judicial oversight, to ensure that government obligations are met in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and international best practices. Such reforms will not only strengthen the enforcement of judicial decisions but also bolster public confidence in the legal system.
Chidi Ezenwafor, Esq., MCArb
