Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Magaji Mato, has warned that the provision of houses, gifts and other welfare packages to judges by the executive arm of government poses a serious threat to judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/yemi.jpg")
Mato, in an interview examining the constitutional, ethical and institutional dimensions of judicial independence, maintained that the welfare of judicial officers should be funded and managed independently by the judiciary rather than being determined by members of the executive.
He said Nigeria operates a constitutional system founded on the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary, stressing that although the three arms work together, each must remain institutionally independent.
According to him, the judiciary’s funding should pass through the constitutionally recognised appropriation process, rather than through gifts, discretionary interventions or welfare projects initiated by executive officials.
“As far as the decency of the profession is concerned, the judiciary has no business accepting gifts or any form of enticement from the executive,” Mato said.
He argued that the construction and allocation of houses to selected judges by the executive could create an appearance of influence, whether or not any direct compromise was intended.
Mato said judges, like other human beings, could be consciously or unconsciously influenced by benefits received from individuals or institutions whose interests might later come before their courts.
“The point of the executive giving them gifts or building houses for them is something that should not be heard of. No matter how you try to embellish it, judges are human beings like us,” he said.
“Any gift that comes into the hands of a judge will definitely have a way of influencing his thinking and, by extension, his judgment concerning the person who offered such a gift.”
He consequently insisted that such arrangements should neither be tolerated nor normalised within Nigeria’s justice system.
Mato said that where accommodation was required for judges, the responsibility should rest with the judiciary, operating through constitutionally guaranteed independent funding.
He argued that the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the heads of the various courts were better placed to determine the welfare and accommodation needs of judicial officers.
According to him, funds intended for judges’ housing should be appropriated directly to the judiciary, which should independently procure or construct the required accommodation without executive involvement.
“If there is a need for accommodation for judges, it should be looked into by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, who is the head of the judiciary, and the judiciary should have an independent means of procurement,” he said.
“They should have their money independently and build houses for judges.”
Mato criticised the provision of 40 residential houses for selected judicial officers, questioning the criteria for determining the beneficiaries and the broader objective of the intervention.
He noted that the Federal Capital Territory alone had more than 60 judges, while the Federal High Court had close to 100 judges nationwide, in addition to justices of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and judges of other courts across the country.
According to him, Nigeria has more than 1,000 judges and justices, making the selection of only 40 beneficiaries difficult to justify as a comprehensive judicial welfare policy.
“There are 40 houses. Even in the Federal Capital Territory alone, we have over 66 judges. In the Federal High Court, we have close to 100 judges,” he said.
“Who among the judges or justices will be given these houses? What is the motive behind building 40 houses when you have over a thousand judges and justices in Nigeria?”
He argued that if the housing initiative was genuinely designed to improve judicial welfare without any underlying motive, it should cover all serving judges or be administered through an equitable and transparent system controlled by the judiciary.
“If the whole idea is not motivated by any other factor, every judge in Nigeria should be taken care of. Then we will know that it is not meant to pay back certain people,” he said.
Mato expressed concern about growing public perceptions that certain judges were aligned with powerful politicians or government officials.
He said claims that particular judicial officers “belong” to influential political figures amounted to a serious indictment of the judiciary and could weaken public trust in the impartiality of the courts.
According to him, lawyers and members of the public increasingly express doubts about the likelihood of securing justice in matters involving powerful members of the executive.
“If you go through the streets of Abuja, I have heard lawyers and ordinary citizens say that a certain judge belongs to a certain person. What does that mean? It is a serious indictment of the judiciary,” he said.
“If you go to some courts, they will tell you that if you have a case against a particular minister, it is a no-go area. This does not speak well of the judiciary.”
Mato said the justice system must not only be independent but must also be seen by the public to be free from political influence.
He argued that even where no judge had been directly compromised, an executive-funded housing arrangement could create an appearance of indebtedness and raise doubts about whether judicial officers would remain impartial when matters involving their benefactors came before them.
The senior lawyer also reacted to the defence that the houses were not personal gifts but official accommodation intended to enable judges to perform their duties more effectively.
He said that explanation did not resolve the central concern about executive involvement or the selective number of beneficiaries.
According to him, it was difficult to explain how 40 houses could substantially improve the performance of judges of the FCT High Court, Federal High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court based in Abuja.
“The Chief Justice of Nigeria tried to defend the issue by saying that the houses were not personal houses but were meant to assist judges to do their work effectively,” Mato said.
“Then one wonders how 40 houses will make all the judges of the FCT, Federal High Court, Court of Appeal and justices of the Supreme Court living in Abuja perform their work.”
He insisted that an FCT minister or any other executive officeholder should not build houses and allocate them to judges.
“The idea of the FCT Minister building houses to donate to judges should not be part of our system. It is not acceptable,” he said.
Mato recalled the position attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Niki Tobi that judges and politicians should maintain a respectful institutional distance despite their personal or social relationships.
He said Justice Tobi warned against judges and politicians regularly meeting to “wine and dine,” because such associations could damage the appearance of judicial impartiality.
Mato argued that judges themselves should reject benefits capable of creating an appearance of influence or obligation.
He said a judicial officer selected to receive luxurious accommodation from the executive might face public suspicion when called upon to decide a case affecting the official or institution responsible for the benefit.
“Even as a judge, if such a thing is offered to you, you know that it has a negative influence on your person, not to talk of influencing judgment concerning the individual who promoted your living condition,” he said.
He described the selection of some judges for preferential accommodation while others continued to struggle with similar welfare challenges as a form of unequal treatment.
“Some are selected to be given houses while others are still managing theirs. This is selective justice,” he said.
Mato maintained that executive-controlled welfare packages for judges were inconsistent with the intention of the framers of the Constitution, who envisaged an independent judiciary insulated from political pressure.
He said that if public resources were to be used for judicial accommodation, all eligible judges should benefit under an equitable programme administered by the judiciary.
According to him, the fact that the houses might remain government property rather than being personally transferred to judges did not eliminate the concerns about influence, selectivity and institutional independence.
“This is not in tandem with what the drafters of the Constitution envisaged from the beginning, and it should not be encouraged in any form,” he said.
“If it must be done, then all judges, not only those in Abuja, should enjoy the same opportunity because the money belongs to all Nigerians.”
Mato said it was difficult to defend an arrangement in which only 40 judicial officers were selected from more than 1,000 judges and justices across the country and provided with luxurious accommodation by the executive.
On the appropriate model for addressing the housing and welfare needs of judges, Mato said the solution was already provided by the Constitution through judicial and financial independence.
He urged the government to allocate and appropriate all funds intended for judges’ welfare directly to the judiciary.
He said the Chief Justice of Nigeria and other heads of courts understood the challenges confronting judicial officers and should be allowed to determine priorities and implement appropriate welfare programmes.
“My model is simple. It is the model laid down by the Constitution,” he said.
“The Constitution has made the judiciary an independent body. It is not subject or answerable to the executive. If the welfare of judges is paramount to the executive or to Nigerians, all funds intended for their welfare should be allocated or appropriated to the judiciary.”
Mato said the judiciary could independently contract the construction of houses, grant housing loans or implement other accommodation schemes without being beholden to any member of the executive.
He maintained that this approach would remove suspicions of political influence and preserve the institutional dignity of the courts.
“If these monies were appropriated to the judiciary, it could independently contract the building of the houses without any form of influence or interference,” he said.
Mato said the judiciary should not merely be declared independent in constitutional provisions while remaining financially dependent on the executive in practice.
He argued that financial dependence could enable members of the executive to use material benefits or discretionary funding to subject the judiciary to political interests.
“What I suggest is exactly what the Constitution envisages: make the judiciary as independent as the Constitution has made it,” he said.
“Do not use material things or money to subject judges to the whims and caprices of the executive.”
He noted that the judiciary had repeatedly complained about inadequate funding for the welfare of judges and the acquisition of modern facilities required for effective justice delivery.
Mato questioned why the executive should retain funds and selectively provide houses when the judiciary lacked sufficient resources to address its own needs.
“The judiciary is crying out that there is no money to sustain basic welfare and no money to acquire modern facilities to conduct its adjudicatory activities effectively,” he said.
“Yet, the executive is spending money and building houses for whoever it chooses.”
He said the law was already clear and that there was no legal or administrative difficulty preventing the government from ensuring genuine financial autonomy for the judiciary.
According to him, once the necessary funds were directly released, judicial institutions could decide how best to improve the welfare and working conditions of judges.
“The Constitution has laid down the principle. It has made the judiciary an independent body,” he said.
“Make it independent not only on paper or on the face of the statute, but make it financially independent. That is the solution.”
Mato concluded that the executive should not be permitted to decide which judges deserved housing or other benefits, warning that such discretion could negatively affect both judicial officers and public confidence in the justice system.
“It is not the executive that should decide whom to build a house for and whom not to build a house for,” he said.
“No matter how the idea of building 40 executive houses is presented in a country with more than 1,000 judges and justices, it cannot be justified. Whether we like it or not, it has a negative influence not only on citizens’ perception but also on the justices themselves.”
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “How to use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion.”
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
