Courts and State Houses of Assembly across the country are under lock and key in total compliance with the strike called by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) and the Parliamentary Staff Association of Nigeria (PASAN) respectively. Both unions have taken industrial action over the non-implementation of financial autonomy for their institutions.
While at the federal category, the judiciary and the National Assembly (NASS) are on the front line charge entitling them to financial autonomy, the same cannot be said of the judiciary and legislature at the state level. Determined to ensure that states give the thumbs up to these constitutional provisions, JUSUN and PASAN consequently instructed their members throughout the country to shut down indefinitely.
Recall that on the 22nd of May, 2020, President Muhammadu Buhari signed Executive Order 10, which seeks to institute the financial sovereignty of the legislature and the judiciary at the state level. Not surprisingly, the President’s action sparked off a heated debate about the constitutionality or otherwise of the Order. This was mainly among state governors.
The objective of the Executive Order 10, also known as the “Implementation of Financial Autonomy of State Legislature and State Judiciary Order, 2020,” is to ensure effective conformity with the 4th Alteration to the Constitution and provide a realistic framework for the legislative and judicial arms of state governments to have financial autonomy.
The 4th Alteration, which amended Section 121(3) of the Constitution, provides that: “Any amount standing credit of the – a) House of Assembly of the state, and b) Judiciary, in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state shall be paid directly to the said bodies respectively; in the case of the judiciary, such amount shall be paid directly to the Heads of the Courts concerned.”
Before this modification, Section 121(3) and the related provision contained in Section 81 of the Constitution, which pertains to the Federal Government, provided autonomy for only the judiciary. The President’s Executive Order enjoins the Accountant-General of the Federation to deduct from source the money payable to state legislature and judiciary from the monthly allocations of states whose executive fail to approve of financial autonomy for the other arms of government.
The Order directs state governments to set up a committee comprising the Commissioner of Finance, the Accountant-General of the State, a representative of the state’s Budget Office, the Chief Registrar of the High Court, Sharia Court of Appeal or Customary Court of Appeal as applicable, the Clerk of the House of Assembly and the Secretary of the State Judicial Service Committee or Commission. This committee is to be accorded legal recognition in the appropriation laws of each state. The committee’s main undertaking is to, where appropriate, determine based on the revenue silhouette of the state, a feasible budget for each arm of the state government.
The Executive Order also provides that each state judiciary should set up a judiciary budget committee to be accountable for preparing, administering and enforcing the budget of the judiciary. The committee would incorporate the state’s Chief Judge as Chairman, the Grand Kadi of Sharia Court of Appeal or President of Customary Court of Appeal as applicable, and two members of the Judicial Service Committee or Commission to be appointed by the Chief Judge. The Chief Registrar is to function as Secretary of the committee.
The absence of financial autonomy for both tiers of government has become a protracted issue, specifically with the judiciary, which was granted such autonomy earlier than the 4th Alteration. The desire to implement this autonomy inspired Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) to file a lawsuit against the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the NASS in February 2013. His suit oppugned the extant policies of appropriating the judiciary’s budget in the Appropriation Bills, rather than being a first-line charge paid directly to the judiciary. He insisted that the practice was inconsistent with the constitutional provisions of Section 81(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
Similarly, JUSUN instituted an action against the NJC, AGF and state Attorneys General in the same year, and claimed reliefs for the execution of the monetary autonomy of the judiciary at both the federal and state levels by the provisions of Sections 81(3) and 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution. Both suits were determined in favour of the financial autonomy of the judiciary. However, several years later, essential parts of the judgments are nonetheless being traduced as state governments maintain their breach of the Constitution.
The struggle for real autonomy of state legislature and the judiciary by JUSUN and PASAN deserves support from true lovers of democracy. In any democratic administration, all arms of government bear an equal weight of responsibility. While the legislature makes laws, the judiciary interprets the same and the executive runs the government. To discharge these duties, therefore, the three arms of government must function independently of each other to ensure a balanced society. This is exactly what the principle of separation of powers hypothecates.
Though Nigeria professes to be practising a democratic system of government, her actual applications of democratic principles are far-flung from global standards. Unlike many other nations, the Nigerian judiciary, which ought to be the illuminant of justice and the confidence of the ordinary man, suffers severe inordinate interference from the executive arm of government. For instance, while other arms of government budge their annual budgets to the legislature for approval, the judiciary is constrained from doing the same as their budget estimates are transmitted to the executive instead of the legislature.
Since independence, the judiciary has remained the shellacking organ of the other arms of government, totally famished of funds, influenced at will by the executive and diminished to mere rubber stamp. The legislature undergoes a similar fate. This is the battle Assembly and judiciary workers in the country are currently immersed in and we seriously consider it a just struggle, more so when several courts had ruled on the illegality of the practice.
We endorse any action taken to wean off the judiciary and the legislature from arm-twisting and enslavement, whether by way of a strike, court action or otherwise. Such effort should be sustained by all democrats and indeed all lawyers. We urge Nigerians, including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to support JUSUN and PASAN as they deserve our collective solidarity, not denunciation. Everyone must patronise this struggle as a truly independent legislature and judiciary is the aspiration of the average Nigerian.