AKEEM NAFIU writes that lawyers have called for full financial autonomy for the judiciary in order to end the ‘unlawful practice’ of gifting cars and houses to judges by the executive arm of government
Some senior lawyers have called for proper empowerment of the judiciary to allow the third arm of government address its needs directly without relying on any largesse from other arms of government.
The lawyers spoke at the weekend on the heels of recent concerns by two global bodies; Amnesty International (AI) and Transparency International (TI) over the negative impacts the procurement of official vehicles and building of houses for judicial officers by the executive is exerting on the justice sector.
Speaking through, Auwal Musa, their representative in Nigeria, the global bodies said if not checked, the practice is capable of compromising judicial independence.
Musa said: “So, the issue is that now, the kind of governance we have is governance without morality, without ethics, without value system, without respect for due process, without regard to the constitutional order.
“So, it is impunity that (allegedly) runs the nation’s democracy, and disregard for rule of law. So, in this context, there is nothing that you will not see. You will continue to be surprised, and they will always try to justify it in their funny way of circumventing due process.
“Am I not telling you the truth that it is not proper; that in order to have balance, and also to have proper separation of powers, to have independence, and to have fairness in any judgement that concerns either the individuals that are doing that in their personal capacities, or the respective offices they are holding? That is why there is separation of powers among the judiciary, executive and the legislature”.
FG’s house gift for judges
Prior to the latest concerns by AI and TI, plans by the Federal Government to build houses for judicial officers in the FCT had equally attracted public criticisms.
However, dismissing the criticisms, FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, said plans by the Federal Government to construct 40 housing units for judges and justices in the FCT was part of government’s Renewed Hope Housing agenda to provide secure and convenient accommodation for judicial officers.
He noted that of the 40 units to be constructed in the Katampe District, 20 will be allocated to the FCT High Court, 10 to the Federal High Court, and 10 to the Court of Appeal.
The FCT minister denied allegations that the building of the houses for judges in Abuja was aimed at “pocketing them for political gains”. Wike insisted that the project was approved in the 2024 budget, and that he was only performing his duty by implementing it.
He said the building of the judges’ quarters was not his policy, but part of welfare packages that President Tinubu designed for the judges to promote the independence of the judiciary.
“I am not Mr. President; I am only lucky to be appointed as a minister under this administration and who is in the position to implement his policies. Mr. President said, look, this is what he wants; come up and see what we can do.
The practice of governors publicly donating cars and houses to judges is demeaning
“It was approved by Mr. President, sent to the National Assembly in the 2024 budget that there should be construction of judges and justices’ quarters; that they should move judges from where they were renting houses, living among criminals.
“It is in the budget of 2024, appropriated by the National Assembly, assented to by Mr. President which is a law. What is the problem? I am only the implementer”. The land on which the houses would be built was said to have been seized by the FCT administration from the construction giant, Julius Berger Nigeria.
CJN hails FG’s plan
Despite public outcry, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has hailed Federal Government’s plan to build houses for judges and justices, saying the ‘gift’ would boost the judicial officers’ performance.
Speaking at the flagging-off ceremony of the project, the CJN said the arrangement is a significant milestone in the continuous effort of government at enhancing the welfare of judicial officers in the FCT. Justice Kekere-Ekun emphasised the need for judges to have peace of mind to operate efficiently and perform their duties with greater focus.
“The construction of these residences is a practical step towards ensuring that judicial officers are well-supported; it reflects the recognition that the mental well-being of judicial officers is directly tied to their living conditions.
“These homes will provide a secure and tranquil environment enabling judicial officers to perform their duties with greater focus, efficiency and clarity of mind. “The ability of judicial officers to perform their functions is strengthened when their well-being is prioritised and their work condition is conducive.
“Judicial officers require peace of mind, security and comfort in their residences to fully dedicate themselves to the rigorous task of interpreting and applying the law. “Beyond the courtroom, a supportive and conducive living environment is essential to their ability to focus on the heavy responsibility entrusted to them”, the CJN said.
SERAP’s litigation threat Sequel to FG’s plan to build houses for judges, a rights organization, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), threatened to drag President Bola Tinubu and all state governors to court if the practice of gifting cars and houses to judges is not halted forthwith.
The litigation threat was contained in an open letter which was addressed to President Bola Tinubu. The letter dated 9th November, 2024 was signed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.
In it, SERAP urged Tinubu to stop the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike and all state governors from usurping the authority and responsibilities of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and heads of court through giving of cars and houses to judges.
The organisation said, such practices are clearly antithetical to the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances and the rule of law, and may create the perception that the judiciary is subservient to the executive.
SERAP also urged Tinubu to direct the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), as a defender of public interest, to challenge in court, the constitutionality and legality of the practice of giving cars and houses to judges in Abuja and across the states.
The letter copied to Ms. Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, reads: “Politicians ought to keep their hands off the judiciary and respect and protect its integrity and independence. Politicians must treat judges with dignity and respect.
“The Nigerian Constitution and international standards make clear that the judiciary is neither subservient to the executive nor the legislature. “Undermining the fundamental principle of separation of powers risks constraining the ability of the judiciary to act as a check on the executive.
“SERAP urges you to substantially improve funding for the judiciary to enhance their working conditions, welfare and pensions through existing constitutional arrangements and mechanisms, to uphold the independence and autonomy of the judiciary and to protect judges from executive interference. “Your government has the constitutional and international obligations to promote public confidence in the judiciary and safeguard the rule of law.
“The reports that members of the executives in the FCT and across several states are giving cars and houses to judges appear to take place without following any constitutional or procedural process, which may have a chilling effect on the rule of law and access to justice and effective remedies.
“Promoting the effective implementation of constitutional provisions and international standards on the financial autonomy of the judiciary would contribute towards ensuring the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, and judicial integrity and independence.
“Your government has the constitutional responsibility to ensure equality of arms in the relationship between the three branches of government: the judiciary, executive and legislature and to uphold the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.
“An independent judiciary, the essential guardian of the rule of law, is the linchpin of the scheme of checks and balances through which the separation of powers is assured. Members of the executive should not have any control over the judiciary’s funds.
“The rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic society. It is the only basis upon which individuals, private corporations, public bodies and the executive can order their lives and activities. And if the rule of law is to be upheld it is essential that there should be an independent judiciary.
“Because it is the executive that exercises the power of the state and because it is the executive, in one form or another, that is the most frequent litigator in the courts, it is from executive pressure that judges require particularly to be protected.
“SERAP urges you to direct Mr Fagbemi to ensure full compliance by Mr Wike and the 36 state governors with the provisions of Sections 81(3) and 121(3)(a)- (h) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended], and to respect and protect judicial integrity and independence”.
Lawyers speak
In the meantime, some senior lawyers have called for full financial autonomy for the judiciary to allow the third arm of government cater adequately for its basic needs.
The lawyers said the judiciary, as the guardian of constitutionalism, must be insulated from the influence of the Executive Speaking on the issue, President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), called for an immediate end to the practice of donation of cars and houses to judges by the executive arm of government, saying it is demeaning. Baring his mind on a television interview, Osigwe emphasised that the official needs of the judiciary should be budgeted for and not subjected to the control of state governors.
He maintained that monies or anything needed by the judiciary, be it vehicles, courtrooms, or other infrastructural needs, be budgeted for in the judiciary budget, and the judiciary allowed to execute them.
“The practice of governors or executives publicly donating cars and houses to judges is demeaning and undermining the judiciary’s dignity. “The judiciary’s needs—vehicles, infrastructure, and welfare—should be budgeted for and executed by the judiciary itself, not as executive handouts:
“We believe it’s demeaning and ought not to be. The judiciary should be an independent part of government and should not be demeaned or reduced to a point where members of the judiciary should be given handouts as if a favour was being done to them”, Osigwe said.
Speaking in the same vein, a rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, also criticized the executive’s practice of providing vehicles and housing to judicial officers, calling it unconstitutional and a direct affront to judicial independence.
Falana said: “There are no provisions in the law for a Minister of the Federal Capital Territory to gift houses and cars to federal judges whom he has cases in front of. It goes against the financial independence of the judiciary which is enshrined in our constitution. “There should be constitutional allocation.
If such welfare provisions are needed, funds should be directed through the National Assembly to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which is constitutionally empowered to appropriate them”. On his part, a public interest lawyer, Dr. Abdul Mahmud, said the action undermines the rule of law a weakens judiciary’s independence. “Yes, I share the concerns of Amnesty International and Transparency International.
“The judiciary, as the guardian of constitutionalism must be insulated from the influence of the executive. When judges depend on the executive branch for vehicles, houses, or other perks, it creates the perception, if not the reality, that judges may be beholden to the benefactor rather than to the law.
“Such gestures, no matter how well intentioned, risk blurring the line between necessary support and undue influence. “This action by the executive undermines the rule of law to the extent that it weakens judicial independence, which is central to constitutional democracy. An independent judiciary must be free from external pressures that could shape its decisions”, Mahmud said.
In his comments, a senior lawyer, Ahmed Maiwada, emphasised the need for the judiciary to be insulated from executive and legislative interference. Maiwada said: “The concerns raised are legitimate. The judiciary is expected to be an independent arm of government, insulated from both executive control and legislative interference.
When the executive undertakes to procure vehicles and build houses for judicial officers outside of constitutionally approved mechanisms (such as through the National Judicial Council and budgetary allocations), it creates an appearance of indebtedness or undue influence.
“Even if the intention is genuine welfare, the perception it creates is troubling: judges who receive direct benefits from the executive may appear compromised in cases involving government interests. In law, perception of bias can be as damaging as actual bias because it erodes public confidence in judicial impartiality. “By bypassing institutional frameworks (e.g., NJC), the executive weakens constitutional checks designed to keep powers distinct.
The rule of law does not operate in the abstract; it requires citizens’ trust in the impartiality of courts. Once people perceive judges as beholden to the executive, they begin to doubt whether justice can be done when the government is a party in litigation”. In his submissions, a senior lawyer, Abiodun Olugbemide, described the practice as an insult to the judiciary.
The practice is against financial independence of the judiciary which is enshrined in the Constitution
He said: “With all my heart, I share in the concerns of Amnesty International, and Transparency International, about the procurement of official vehicles, and building of houses for judicial officers by the executive, because in all honesty, it is capable of compromising judicial independence in the country.
“The issue here is not whether it will, all that is sufficient is if it can, and the answer is yes, it can. All over the world, justice must not just be done, but must be seen to have been done, meaning, it is irrelevant if there was a compromise or not, as long as an onlooker has a doubt about the administration of justice, then, justice has been compromised.
“How do you convince anyone that the people you bought cars and built houses for, are those before whom you have existing cases, how do you justify that!? “Also, the executive buying cars and building houses for the judiciary, is a great insult on the judiciary.
How? There is a structured and wellspelt out way, for such to be done, as provided for by the law. There is no provision for the action of the executive anywhere. All the three arms of government are designed to enjoy financial autonomy.
“It must be borne in mind that just last year, the initial budget for the judiciary was the sum of N160 billion naira, but when the National Assembly was convinced, that cars and houses would be needed for judges, the budget was increased to N345 billion. “Therefore, the judiciary has no reason to go beggarly to the Executive, pleading for anything, or being found in a situation of receiving “favour” from the Executive.
This action by the Executive, is a gross violation of the rule of law”. In his comments, a senior lawyer, Timilehin Ojo, said: “Yes, I share the sentiments expressed by Amnesty International and Transparency International.
Their concern raises a fundamental question about the independence of the judiciary from the executive arms of government, particularly its ability to fairly interpret and apply the law.
“When the executive, at either the federal or state level, makes it a practice to provide substantial personal benefits to judges based on discretionary powers, it inevitably creates real or perceived bias. As a result, the impartiality of the judiciary becomes questionable, especially in cases involving the government. “This is a valid and reasonable concern for members of the public, as it strikes at the very foundation of trust in the judicial system.
“Our legal framework enshrines the separation of powers, and the Constitution guarantees judicial independence, including financial autonomy. Any enhancements to judicial welfare must be made in strict adherence to these provisions. “Judicial integrity is central to the rule of law. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that such actions by the executive undermine the rule of law in several significant ways.
“First, there’s the issue of conflict of interest, where judges may feel indebted to the executive, consciously or unconsciously, as a result of the benefits received. While some may argue that the executive is merely stepping in to meet urgent needs, bypassing institutional processes sets a dangerous precedent that weakens judicial autonomy over time.
“Even if the intention is wellmeaning, public perception matters. Once the judiciary is seen as influenced by executive generosity, confidence in its impartiality erodes.
This leads to a loss of public trust, reduced judicial accountability, and a weakened ability to check executive overreach, all of which are fundamentally damaging to democratic governance. “This is not to suggest that judges should be denied adequate welfare. On the contrary, ensuring fair and dignified conditions for judicial officers is essential to safeguarding judicial independence.
However, this must be achieved through transparent, constitutionally backed and institutionalized frameworks, not through executive discretion”. A rights activist, Kabir Akingbolu, queried the rationale behind the Executive’s action, saying, constitutionally, each arm of government is suppose to be independent.
“Under the Constitution, Section 4 gives legislative power to the State Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly, while Section 5 gives executive powers to political office holders. Section 6 however give judicial powers to the Judiciary. With this, each arm of government is suppose to be independent. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case in this country. “We are having all these issues because there is no financial autonomy for the judiciary.
That is why the Executive is still in charge of procurement of cars. In practice, judges’ vehicles are supposed to be changed every four years, but in this country, we see judges using the same car for an upward of ten years. Whereas, many political office holders hardly use the same car for two years. “In essence, judiciary should be given full financial autonomy in order to manage its own affairs. Anything short of this is not acceptable because the judiciary’s independence will be in jeopardy”, Akingbolu said.
