Authored By: Nwachukwu Favour Chiamaka
Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
Reflecting on contemporary Nigerian society reveals the devastating impact of corruption on the judicial system. Corruption has ravaged the fabric of justice, affecting every aspect. This reality highlights the contentious issue of judicial autonomy’s impact on the Nigerian judicial system’s efficacy. In Nigeria, judicial autonomy is a critical issue. In fact, on April 6, the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) commenced a strike, directing its members to shut down courts nationwide, paralyzing the judicial system. The strike protested state governors’ non-compliance with constitutional provisions on judicial autonomy and their refusal to obey existing court judgments. Therefore, reexamining the legal framework surrounding judicial autonomy is essential, along with its impact on the judicial system’s efficacy and societal implications. A nuanced understanding of the complexities is crucial.
Key words: Judiciary, Judicial Autonomy, judicial Independence.
INTRODUCTION
Aristotle, a prominent philosopher, wrote that only a beast or god can live outside a political community without the protective shelter of government, as humans are inherently political animals.[1]
Governments play a pivotal role in protecting weaker community members from exploitation. J.S. Mill aptly articulated this concept, emphasizing the need for laws to limit government power and safeguard individual liberties and fundamental human rights.[2]
The judiciary, as the ultimate interpreter of Nigeria’s Constitution, determines the scope and limits of power conferred on each government branch. It ensures the observance of law and compliance with constitutional requirements through judicial review, a potent tool for maintaining the rule of law.
The International Commission of Jurists views the rule of law as a dynamic concept that safeguards civil and political rights, establishes social, economic, educational, and cultural conditions for individual dignity and aspirations.[3]
The judiciary is the last hope for the common man. Section 6 of the 1979 Constitution[4] vests the judicial power of the Federation in the courts. In Nigeria’s complex and plural society, justice can only be dispensed by an independent judiciary. The International Commission of Jurists recognizes that an independent judiciary is essential for a free society under the rule of law. A strong, independent, and impartial judiciary ensures just conflict resolution, upholding the spirit of the law to promote non-violent social change.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines autonomy as the right or condition of self-government. In other words, autonomy is a person’s ability or capacity to act on their own values or interests without interference from others. Thus, judicial autonomy refers to the capacity of the judiciary to make its own decisions in all its ramifications without interference from any other entity, except as permitted by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
When discussing judicial autonomy, financial autonomy is a primary concern. However, apart from financial autonomy, the independence of the judiciary in administering its affairs, including appointments, dismissals, retirements, and disciplinary actions, is also a pressing issue. The Constitution provides specific provisions on these matters. When the executive, at the federal or state level, departs from these constitutional provisions and attempts to interfere with the judiciary’s functioning, judicial autonomy is compromised, which is detrimental to democratic governance.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
In Nigeria’s democratic framework, the Constitution meticulously delineates the powers of the three government arms: the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.[5]
The Judiciary’s role in democracy is sacrosanct, as aptly emphasized by Osoloka H Obaze, former Secretary to the Anambra State Government, in a January 1, 2016, Guardian Newspaper article[6]. Obaze stressed that the Judiciary’s efficacy hinges on its independence, encompassing doctrinal, operational, and financial autonomy – three inextricably linked components. The judiciary is indeed a very powerful tool of governance but only if its autonomy is unimpeded.
To preserve judicial independence, the National Judicial Council, established by Section 153(1)(h) of the Constitution, plays a vital role. The Council’s composition and functions, outlined in the Third Schedule, Part 1, include detailed provisions for appointing and removing judicial officers. Moreover, it controls and disburses the Judiciary’s funds, ensuring financial autonomy. Sections 162(9) and 121(3)[7] of the Constitution further reinforced this autonomy by mandating direct payment of funds to the National Judicial Council and heads of courts, respectively.
The Constitution’s recognition of judicial independence is crucial in ensuring the Judiciary’s impartiality, particularly in cases involving the Executive and citizens. If the Judiciary’s appointments or financial needs are controlled by the Executive, its ability to remain impartial is compromised. The adage “he who pays the piper dictates the tune” aptly illustrates this concern.
CHALLENGES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Despite constitutional provisions guaranteeing judicial independence, the Executive has largely ignored these safeguards. Hon. Justice Chinwe E. Iyizoba JCA (RTD), former Attorney-General of Anambra State, vividly described the judiciary’s plight, highlighting the Chief Judge’s frequent visits to the Governor’s office to beg for funds. This lack of financial autonomy has severe consequences, including dilapidated infrastructure, low staff morale, and delayed justice.
The situation is dire, with court buildings in disrepair, leaking roofs, and inadequate facilities. Hon. Justice Iyizoba recalled the deplorable state of courts in Onitsha and Nnewi, emphasizing that underfunding and neglect have plagued the judiciary for years. Even federal courts, like the Federal High Court in Lagos, face similar challenges, with overcrowding, poor seating, and inadequate space.
However, Professor Nnamani Ogbu[8] has a different view. He believes the country needs regeneration through revolution because constitutional amendments have weakened the checks and balances, thereby exacerbating corruption. What should be discussed is judicial independence, rendering justice according to conscience and understanding of the law to avoid corruption temptations – which is why judges are paid substantial amounts. The idea of separation of powers may be compromised if judicial autonomy comes into force.
THE EROSION OF JUSTICE: THE IMPACT OF JUDICIAL AUTONOMY’S ABSENCE
The lack of judicial independence undermines the justice system, eroding public confidence. Judges are forced to beg for funds, compromising their impartiality. The Chief Justice of Nigeria during the ceremony to mark the new legal year of the Supreme Court on September 23, 2019, aptly illustrated this point, and spoke the minds of judges across the land by emphasising that if a judge begs for funds to run his office then he is not independent. He elaborated further by likening such a judge’s independence to a cow tied to a tree while supposedly free to graze.[9]
Judicial independence in Nigeria remains a myth, with governors and politicians exerting undue influence over judicial officers.
The impact of this on our justice delivery system is profound, as the court’s neutrality can no longer be guaranteed, leading many to lose faith in seeking remedies. We must hope that the judiciary never loses public confidence entirely, lest we descend into a Hobbesian state of anarchy, where, as the Latin maxim Homo Homini Lupus suggests, humans become wolves to one another.
The lack of financial independence in State Judiciaries has been the subject of debates,[10] discussions and even the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) has fought for financial independence through strikes and litigation over the years. Court judgments, including Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria v. National Judicial Council & Governor of the 36 States,[11] Olisa Agbakoba v. Federal Government of Nigeria, National Judicial Council & The National Assembly,[12] and the case of Olisa Agbakoba v. Attorney General Ekiti State & 2 Ors,[13] have consistently ruled in favor of judicial autonomy. In the case of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria v. National Judicial Council & Governor of the 36 States,[14] the Federal Court Abuja (Ademola J) held amongst other things that, the piecemeal allocation of funds, through the states Ministries of Finance to the Judiciary, at the pleasure of the executive, is unconstitutional, unprocedural, cumbersome, null, void, and should be abated forthwith. Despite these judgments, state governors continue to disregard the law, denying judiciaries the funds they need.
The various strikes by JUSUN is to get the Governors to comply with the judgements and the constitutional provisions on judicial autonomy. The Federal Government on the 22nd of March 2019 set up a Presidential Implementation Committee on Autonomy of State Legislature and Judiciary. The objective was for the Committee to drive the actualization of the autonomy granted to the judiciary and state legislatures in accordance with the newly amended Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution.[15] In the heat of the JUSUN strike the Committee after a two day retreat in the middle of May came up with a 12-point communique.
The Federal Government’s Executive Order No. 10 aimed to implement financial autonomy for state legislatures and judiciaries. However, most states have yet to comply, rendering judicial autonomy a mirage. JUSUN’s strike actions, supported by the Nigerian Bar Association, seek to enforce compliance with constitutional provisions and court judgments.
CONCLUSION
An independent judiciary is crucial for a free society under the rule of law, ensuring just dispute resolution and preventing self-help. However, the current system makes state governors responsible for capital expenditures and recurrent costs for lower courts, leaving judiciaries vulnerable to funding whims. This undermines judicial autonomy, dignity, and effectiveness.
When chief judges rely on governors for funds, it compromises their independence. Effective judicial autonomy would empower judges, reduce corruption, and minimize executive interference. It’s essential to address this issue to ensure the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality.
Some potential ways to improve judicial autonomy include: Direct funding for judiciaries; Clear guidelines for fund allocation; and Strengthening constitutional provisions.
Ultimately, ensuring judicial autonomy is vital for Nigeria’s democratic development and the protection of human rights. By taking decisive steps to address the funding issue, Nigeria can strengthen its judiciary, enhance the rule of law, and promote a more just and equitable society for all.
Reference(S):
[1] Aristotle. Politics translated by Benjamin Jowell) New York: Oxford University press Inc., 1973. p.33.
[2] Mill. J.S., On Liberty, Representative Government. The Subjection of Women (London Oxford University Press. 1969. p.6.
[3] The Law of Lagos, 1961.
[4] See also, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended, 2023), Section 6.
[5] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended in 2023), Section 4-6.
[6] Unbundling Nigeria’s Judiciary By Oseloka H. Obaze http://blog.odogwublog.com.
[7] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended in 2023), Section 162(9); Section 121(3).
[8]Constitutional Law lecture on Judicial Autonomy, by Prof. Nnamani Ogbu, Faculty of Law, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Feb 12, 2023.
[9] Judicial Financial Autonomy: A Way Forward. Https://dnllegalandstyle.com.
[10] Appropriate Funding of the Judiciary, The Challenges. Http;//www.nigerianiawguru.com.
[11] Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria v. National Judicial Council & Governor of the 36 States, Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/667/13.
[12] Olisa Agbakoba v. Federal Government of Nigeria, National Judicial Council & The National Assembly, Suit No: FHC/CS/63/2013.
[13] Olisa Agbakoba v. Attorney General Ekiti State & 2 Ors, Suit No. NAD/56/13.
[14] Supra.
[15] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended, 2023), Section 121(3).
