More facts have emerged on the suit by 36 state governors before the
Supreme Court, jointly challenging the contentious Executive Order 10
signed by President Muhammadu Buhari, granting financial autonomy to
state judiciaries and legislatures.
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such suits is provided
under Section 232 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 thus: “The
Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original
jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state, or
between states if, and in so far as that dispute involves any question
(whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal
right depends.”
While signing the Order on May 22, President Buhari said he relied on sections 5 and 121(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999.
He added that the orders, which will be implemented across the states,
would make them independent and more accountable in line with the report
of the Presidential Implementation Committee set up to examine the
implementation of financial autonomy for state legislatures and
judiciaries.
In the statement released by the office of the Attorney-General of the
Federation, Abubakar Malami, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN)
following the accent, the Order provides thus:
“That the Accountant-General of the Federation shall, by this Order and
such other orders, regulations or guidelines as may be issued by the
Attorney General of the Federation and Minster of Justice, authorise the
deduction from source in the course of Federation Accounts Allocation
from money allocated to any state of the Federation that fails to
release allocation meant for the state legislature and judiciary in line
with the financial autonomy guaranteed by Section 121(3) of the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended),” the statement read.
The AGF further explains that Article 6(1) of the Order provides that “notwithstanding
the provisions of this Executive Order in the first three years of its
implementation, there shall be special extraordinary capital allocations
for the judiciary to undertake capital development of state judiciary
complexes, High Courts complexes, Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary
Court of Appeal and court complexes of other courts befitting the status
of courts.”
But in their originating summons before the Supreme Court, the 36 state
governments averred that the Order violates the provisions of sections 6
and 81(3), and item 21(e) of the Third Schedule to the Nigerian
Constitution, 1999, which they maintained obligated the Federal
Government with the “responsibility for funding all capital and
recurrent expenditures of the High Courts, Sharia Courts of Appeal and
Customary Courts of Appeal of the states of the Federation of Nigeria,
being courts created under Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.”
Section 81(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 states that, “Any
amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the National
Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of the courts established
for the Federation and the state under section 6 of this constitution.”
The suit was filed on behalf of the states at the apex court by their
lawyer, Austin Alegeh (SAN), leading eight other SANs and lawyers.
In the affidavit deposed to by a lawyer in the legal team, Chinweoke
Onumonu, she averred that each attorney-general of a state informed her
that their state governments had expended total sums in funding capital
and recurrent expenditure of the state High Court and Customary Court of
Appeal from May 5, 1999 to January 31, 2020.
The states further contend that the Federal Government, which will be
represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation, has the
constitutional responsibility to fund the recurrent and capital
expenditure of the High Courts, Sharia Courts of Appeal and Customary
Courts of Appeal of the states.
The states also explained that apart from salaries of judicial officers
in the states, which are currently paid by the Federal Government
through the National Judicial Commission (NJC), they are saddled with
the responsibility of capital and recurrent expenditure, which
obligation they say “has tremendous impact on the finances of the
plaintiff states (36 states) and currently accounts for a significant
portion of the revenue accruing to the plaintiff states on a continuous
basis.”
According to them, some of their capital expenditures include court
rooms, residential quarters, furniture, vehicles, generators and others,
while they continue to bear recurrent expenditures in the courts,
except for the salaries of judicial officers.
“In the face of continuing and persistent refusal of the defendant
(Federal Government) to fulfill its constitutional duty and obligation,
the plaintiffs have invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to resolve the dispute and determine the respective
**************************************************
Source: Daily Trust
0 comments:
Post a Comment