‘Compel NJC To Present Its Budget To National Assembly Independently Of Executive Budget’ — NBA 1st VP, Welfare Sec. Ask Court

The 1st Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, John Aikpokpo-Martins and Welfare Secretary, Kunle Edun have instituted an action at the Federal High Court Abuja seeking compelling and declaratory orders directing the National Judicial Council to present its estimates of expenditure directly to the National Assembly independent of the budget estimates presented by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In the SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1037/2022 BETWEEN: John Aikpokpo-Martins Esq and Olukunle Ogheneovo Edun VS President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, National Assembly, National Judicial Council and Accountant General of the Federation, the Plaintiffs are praying the court to compel the Defendants to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1), (2), (3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the 1999 Constitution and the subsisting judgement of the Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013.

In the Originating Summons sighted by TheNigeriaLawyer, the Plaintiffs asked the Court for the determination of seven issues, to wit:

Whether the 3rd Defendant by virtue of the joint reading of the provisions of sections 80(2), (4); 81(2) & 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the Judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS is mandatorily required to present directly to and/or lay its expenditure directly before the 2nd Defendant.

Whether by virtue of the joint reading of the mandatory provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1),(2),(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS the 4th Defendant is not compelled to pay directly to the 3rd defendant the amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation without further directive, recourse, consultation or interference from the 1st Defendant and/or any of his ministers, officers, agents, subordinates and/or agencies.

Whether by virtue of the joint reading of the mandatory provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1),(2),(3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS the 1st Defendant, his ministers, agencies or departments under him have any vires to demand for and receive from the 3rd defendant the estimates and expenditure of the judiciary for budgeting purpose.

Whether by virtue of the joint reading of the mandatory provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1),(2),(3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, and in compliance with the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS the 2nd Defendant has any vires, power or authority to demand for and receive from the 1st Defendant the estimates of expenditure of the judiciary for appropriation purpose.

Whether upon proper interpretations of the provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1),(2),(3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants have not been persevering in gross illegality, wrongfulness and unconstitutional breaches with the practice of the 3rd Defendant submitting estimates of its expenditure to the 1st Defendant for budgeting purpose.

Whether upon proper interpretations of the provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1),(2),(3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS, the 1st and 4th Defendants have not been persevering in gross illegality, wrongfulness and unconstitutional breaches with the practice of the 1st Defendant and 4th Defendant not paying over to the 3rd Defendant the amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation or paying same at their whims and discretion.

Whether by virtue of the subsisting Judgment of this Honorable Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: Olisa Agbakoba v. Attorney General of the Federation & 2 Ors., the actions of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not in continued violation and contemptuous of the said judgment.

They prayed inter alia for:

An Order restraining the 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th Defendants, their subordinates and/or any of their agents (agencies), departments, officials and servants from doing anything further that will amount to a breach of the clear provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(2) & 83(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended or in flagrant disregard of the judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS,

A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of sections 80(2), 80(4), 81(1), (2), (3), 83(3), 84(2), (3), (4) & (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and the Judgment of the Federal High Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013: OLISA AGBAKOBA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & 2 ORS, the 1st Defendant is not required to present to and/or lay the budget and/or estimates of expenditure of the judiciary before the 2nd Defendant.

In a 29-paragraph affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff averred that the Defendants have continued to violate the provisions of the Constitution and extant judgements of the Court on standard and acceptable financial practice for the financial expenditures of the judiciary.

According to the Plaintiff, “the actions of the Defendants complained of impair, threatens, interferes and is an intrusion into the constitutionally-guaranteed independence of the Judiciary and has the capacity to break down democratic structures and governance in the country.”

They equally informed the Court that the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) is threatening to call another strike action to enforce compliance with the constitutional provisions and the judgments referred to hereinbefore, and that any time the courts are shut down because of strike actions embarked upon to ensure financial autonomy of the judiciary, lawyers suffer a lot as their means of livelihood as advocates are stopped for the period the strikes action lasts. Saying “We cannot afford another debilitating strike.”

The hearing date for the matter is yet to be communicated.