Supreme Court has reserved judgement in a suit brought by the 36 states of the federation against financial autonomy granted to the judiciary at the state level by President Muhammadu Buhari. \
The president had on May 22, 2020, signed Executive Order 10, which makes it mandatory for all states of the federation to include allocations of both the legislature and the judiciary in their appropriation laws in compliance with section 121(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended).
Dissatisfied with the president’s action, the 36 States which found the decision unpalatable instituted the suit before the highest court in the country through their Attorneys-general on September 17, 2020. The attorneys queried the legality of the Presidential Executive Order 10.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), had clarified that the president signed the order based on the power vested in him as the president under “Section 5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended), which extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, laws made by the National Assembly (including but not limited to Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantee financial autonomy of the State.”
The AGF happens to be the only respondent in the matter.
The plaintiffs argued that President Buhari, by the said Executive Order, pushed the federal government’s responsibility of funding both the capital and recurrent expenditures of the state high courts, Sharia Court of Appeal, and the Customary Court of Appeal to the State governments.
They contended that the order was a clear violation of sections 6 and 8(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which made it the federal government’s responsibility to fund the listed courts.
Noting that they had been funding capital projects in the listed courts since 2009, the states prayed the apex court to order the federal government to make a refund to them.
A statement of claim filed by the states before the apex court reads in part: “Since the 5th of May 2009, the Defendant had not funded the capital and recurrent expenditures of the state high courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and the Customary Court of Appeal of the Plaintiffs’ states, apart from paying only the salaries of the judicial officers of the said courts.
“The plaintiffs’ states have been solely responsible for funding the capital and recurrent expenditures of the state high courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and the Customary Court of Appeal of the Plaintiffs’ states, which the Defendant has failed and refused to fund”.
Augustine Alegeh, who represented the states, stated this while submitting a suit seeking to quash the presidential executive order 00-10 of 2020, which mandates state governments to fund the judiciary.
According to the states, section 81(3) of the 1999 Constitution makes provision for the funding of the courts.
“That item 21(e) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that the National Judicial Council (NJC) is to collect from the defendant and disburse all capital and recurrent expenditure in respect of all the courts established under Section 6 of the same Constitution,” the document reads.
The plaintiffs further stated: “That Section 121(3) of the constitution makes provision for all capital and recurrent expenditures for courts not established under Section 6 of the constitution by the respective plaintiff’s states.”
While adopting their processes before the court, Alegeh argued that salaries, emoluments, remuneration and allowances of judges are not supposed to be in any appropriation bill.
He contended that under section 84 (4) of the constitution, as amended, funds for such expenditure are captured in the consolidated revenue fund, not in the budget.
Responding, Tijani Gazali, counsel to the Attorney-general of the federation (AGF), opposed the plaintiffs’ request.
He said executive order ten was based on a judgment delivered by Adeniyi Ademola, a former judge of a federal high court, in a suit that the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria filed (JUSUN), in which the NJC, the AGF and the attorneys-general of the 36 states, were joined as respondents.
Gazali said since the states never appealed the judgment, the present suit at the apex court is an abuse of the court process.
He further pointed out that the issue of salary and emoluments are expressly stated in the constitution as the federal government’s responsibility, but that the section was silent on funding of capital projects.
“We, therefore, urge my lords to dismiss this suit with a reasonable cost,” Gazali said.
However, Alegeh urged the supreme court to discountenance the argument by the AGF.
He stated: “This is a dispute between the state and the federal government. The states and the federal government were defendants in the case. The plaintiff was JUSUN.
“Even if a state had raised this issue before the federal high court, the federal high court would have no jurisdiction to hear the matter because the constitution provides that all disputes between states and federal government are to be determined by the supreme court.”
He also submitted that the judgment at the high court relates to section 121 of the 1999 constitution, “which deals essentially with funding of inferior courts (magistrate courts, area courts), and we have admitted that is our responsibility, and we are meeting it”.
“JUSUN cannot raise a dispute between the states and the federal government. Only the states or the federal government can trigger the original jurisdiction to come to the supreme court,” he added.
Meanwhile, five senior advocates of Nigeria (SANs) were invited by the Supreme Court to offer a legal opinion on the matter.
The SANs, Adegboyega Awomolo, Olisa Agbakoba, Sebastian Hon, Mahmud Magaji and Musibau Adetunbi, announced their appearances as amicus curiae (friends of the court).
The senior lawyers appeared before the court as early as 8 am on the invitation of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, as amicus curies (friends of the court) to make submissions that will guide the court in making a well-informed decision on the issue.
Awomolo, who took the position of the states, said, “The defendants have admitted that they have been funding the recurrent expenditure of the states, but did not provide reasons why they have refused to fund the capital expenditure.”
He said it is the responsibility of the federal government to fund both recurrent and capital expenditure.
“My submission is that the presidential executive order 010 is unconstitutional,” Awomolo added.
On his part, Agbakoba said both the states and the federal government had breached the constitution.
He said the act of the Lagos State government in funding its state judiciary is contrary to the provisions of the constitution. Still, He agreed that it is the responsibility of the federal government to fund both the recurrent and capital expenditure of courts.
He, however, maintained that the states are not entitled to a refund. “Nobody sent them,” he said.
Another SAN, Hon, also agreed with Agbakoba and Awomolo.
But Magaji and Adetunbi, in their submissions, said funding of the state judiciary is not the federal government’s responsibility.
- Memorandum: Executive Order 21-210, Extension of Executive Order 21-148 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2021 TO: Interested Media FROM: ...
- Memorandum: Executive Order 21-239 (Executive Order of Suspension) Memorandum: Executive Order 21-239 (Executive Order of Suspension) MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Press FROM: ...
- Memorandum: Executive Order 21-240 (Executive Order of Suspension) Memorandum: Executive Order 21-240 (Executive Order of Suspension) TO: Members of the Press FROM: ...
- Memorandum: Executive Order 22-01 (Executive Order of Suspension) Memorandum: Executive Order 22-01 (Executive Order of Suspension) TO: Members of the Press FROM: ...
- Memorandum: Executive Order 22-02 (Executive Order of Suspension) Memorandum: Executive Order 22-02 (Executive Order of Suspension) TO: Members of the Press FROM: ...
- Memorandum: Executive Order 22-55 (Emergency Management – Northwest Florida Wildfires – Amending Executive Order 22-54) Memorandum: Executive Order 22-55 (Emergency Management – Northwest Florida Wildfires – Amending Executive Order 22-54) MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Press FROM: Taryn Fenske, Communications...
- Supreme Court declares Executive Order 10 issued by President Buhari unlawful The Supreme Court has declared President Muhammadu Buhari’s Executive Order 10 (EO10) on state judicial and legislative financing to be illegal and unconstitutional. President Buhari...
- PDP Reacts to Supreme Court Judgement “Once again we say thank you to the Supreme Court”. These are the words of the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party Kola...
- Update On Settlement Of Supreme Court Judgement On Shangisha/Magodo Following the intervention of Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, officials of the State Government and representatives of the Shangisha Landlords Association (the judgment creditors) held...
- Pune land scam: Court reserves order on Eknath Khadse’s son-in-law’s bail plea till February 9 A special PMLA court in Mumbai has completed its hearing on bail plea of Girish Chaudhri, son-in-law of NCP leader Eknath Khadse. The court has...