Among the three arms of government, the judiciary is the least funded. While the executive and the legislature are able to negotiate better deals for themselves, the judiciary is not so lucky.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Idrinstitute.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024.lidw_.jpg")
For instance between 2011 and 2015, the 7th National Assembly had a yearly budgetary allocation of N150 billion. For this period however, the judiciary got N85 Billion in 2011, N75 billion in 2012, N67 billion in 2013, N68 billion in 2014 and in 2015 when general elections were held, the sector got N73 billion. This clearly shows that the judiciary is therefore, left at the mercy of both the executive and the legislature in terms of funding and welfare generally. The consequence of this is that it does not get the resources it needs to deliver on the judicial mandate given to it by Section 6(1) and (2) of the Constitution to act as the last hope of the common man.
Granted that in the face of dwindling revenues, shortage of funds is not only a challenge to the judiciary but also to other arms of government, but the judiciary is worse off. This is because it has no leverage in the budgeting process.
It is reported in the cyberspace that Ondo State Governor, Arakunrin Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SAN, has procured sixteen brand new 2019 model Toyota Land Cruiser Prado SUVs for the use of Judges and the Chief Judge of the state. This, according to reports, is coming 10 years of neglect.
The vehicles were received by the Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Oluwatoyin Akeredolu, on behalf of the judges at the Government House, Alagbaka, Akure on Wednesday.
The Chief Judge, who appreciated the Governor for the gesture, said Judges in the state, including herself, have been using ten-year-old rickety vehicles before the Governor’s intervention.
She said: “My colleagues and I have been riding ten-year-old vehicles hitherto. We have had various experiences of disappointments in the use of our vehicles.
“If you bring my colleagues here, they will tell you the various experiences they have had with their vehicles. I want to thank God for Mr. Governor.
“I want to appreciate this good gesture. We don’t have feelings of entitlement. Though the regulation says give judges new vehicles every four years. By this regulation, it’s an entitlement. But at the same time, we want to appreciate Mr. Governor for not taking us for granted.” (Underlined for emphasis)
The situation of Oyo state is not peculiar to them. It represents the experience of judges in other states of the federation. The manner of appreciation by the Chief Judge is very unfortunate. It depicts the level judiciary has fallen down to.
It is saddening that contrary to the constitutional procedure for preparing the appropriation provided in sections 81 to 84 of the constitution which requires that each arm of government—the executive, legislature and the judiciary—lays before the National Assembly its estimates of revenue and expenditure for each financial year after which it is appropriated, harmonized as a bill and presented to the President for his assent, the common practice now is that the executive prepares the appropriation bill while the legislature passes it into law. The judiciary is then left at the mercy of the two arms of government. More often than not, the executive reduces the budget estimates submitted to it by the judiciary. Sometimes, a sympathetic legislature jerks it up. For instance, while President Muhammadu Buhari allocated N100 billion to the judiciary in the budget estimates he submitted to the National Assembly for 2018 Appropriation Bill, the legislature in its wisdom increased it to N110 billion. That is N10 billion above the same N100 billion that was appropriated for the 2017 fiscal year.
When the budget is finally approved, the executive then decides how to release it. Sometimes it releases funds for the judiciary on quarterly, monthly or bimonthly basis without considering the needs of the judiciary thereby forcing the latter to adjust its plans. The executive gives to the judiciary what it thinks is right and not what the judiciary actually needs. Apart from the uncertainty it creates, releasing funds to the judiciary piecemeal is usually very frustrating. It makes planning difficult. The funds are released through warrants by the Budget Office. A subsisting decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja has declared the practice unconstitutional in Olisa Agbakoba vs. FG, the NJC & National Assembly in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013. Justice Ahmed Mohammed ordered that money belonging to the judiciary in the consolidated revenue of the federation must be “fully paid directly” to the National Judicial Council (NJC). In the judgment, Mohammed said: “The NJC shall prepare the judiciary’s budget as charged upon the Consolidated Revenue and submit it to the Accountant-General of the Federation to transfer to NJC.
The NJC, he said, ought not to send its annual budget to the budget office of the executive arm of government or any other executive authority as was practiced. He ordered NJC to instead send its budget directly to the National Assembly for appropriation.
Mohammed also declared that the dependence of the judiciary on the executive arm for its budgeting and funding by warrants was directly responsible for the under-funding of the judiciary.
“This is also responsible for the poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial services,” he said.
In another suit instituted by the Judiciary Staff Association of Nigeria (JUSUN). Justice Adeniyi of the Federal High Court in Abuja stopped the Federal Government and the 36 states from withholding budgetary allocations of the Judiciary. He relied on sections 83(1), 212(3) and 162(9) of the Constitution and held that the said provisions be complied with.
While the federal judiciary has fared better in terms of funding and welfare, courts at state level are barely getting. Judges in some states sit in decrepit court rooms. Facilities that should make their court rooms comfortable are lacking. Many governors hold their judiciaries to ransom by refusing to release funds to the courts in violation of the constitution.
The issue of inadequate funding at the state level is one of the greatest challenges confronting the judiciary of this nation. The challenges include lack of manpower development, inadequate facilities, among many others. Various capital projects embarked upon by the judiciary across the country are either at a snail speed or completely abandoned due to non-availability of fund. Even judicial officers and other court staff do not get their salaries and allowances on time thereby exposing them to corruption. Proposed reforms including automation of the judicial process remain mere ideals with no fund to implement them. The situation is further compounded as some judges are afraid to deliver judgment that goes against their governors to avoid being starved of fund. Many are under perpetual apprehension.
The reality is that many judges are not independent. Though more responsibilities are being given to the judiciary through many new enactments, the executive has not deemed it necessary to allocate more resources to the judiciary. The judiciary needs to be independent. If things continue as it were, we should not expect the judiciary to be any better. They will continue to be appendages of the Executive arm of government and be doing their bidding.
TheNigeriaLawyer Editorial
NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)
Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.
