Sunday Ejike, Author at Tribune Online

In a split decision of six Justices to one, the Supreme Court on Friday nullified Executive Order 10 initiated by President Muhammadu Buhari to grant financial autonomy to the State Judiciary and Legislature. The apex court held that Executive Order 10 was inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. In a judgment by Justice Muhammed Dattijo in the suit brought before the apex court by the 36 states of the federation against the federal government, the court rejected the request of the 36 state governments for an order to compel the federal government to take up funding of capital projects for State High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal. The Justices also refused to grant an order sought by the 36 state governors to compel the federal government to pay them N66 billion being an amount they claimed to have so far spent on capital projects for the 3 courts in their respective states. Six Justices led by Mohammed Musa Dattijo agreed that the contentious Executive Order 10 violated the provisions of the 1999 Construction which clearly stipulates the functions and powers of heads of each arm of the government. "This country is still a federation and the 1999 Constitution it operates is a federal one. The Constitution provides a clear delineation of powers between the state and the Federal Government. The President has overstepped the limit of his constitutional powers by issuing Executive Order 10. "The country is run on the basis of the rule of law," Justice Mohammed said in the lead judgment. According to the justices, President Buhari over-stepped his bounds with Executive Order 10 and thereby engaged in a breach of the constitution and usurpation of powers of heads of other arms of government. The six Justices are Muhammed Dattijo, Centus Chima Nweze, Hellen Ogunwumiju, Emmanuel Agim, Ejembi Eko and Adamu Jauro. Only Justice Uwani Abba-Aji gave an endorsement to Order 10 adding that it was in line with the provisions of the Constitution to enforce the separation of powers and functions. "We are not unaware of the hanky-panky, subterfuge played by state governors against the independence and financial autonomy of state judiciary. "It is a pitiable eyesore what judicial officers and staff go through financially at the hands of state executives, who often flout constitutional and court orders to their whims and caprices. "Thus, the presidential Executive Order 10 is meant to facilitate the implementation of the constitutional provisions...the Executive Order is to aide the states legislature and judiciary in curing the constitutional wrong of their financial autonomy which the state has always denied. This is not unconstitutional. However, four of the 7-man panel of Justices turned down the request of the 36 state governors for an order of the apex court to compel the federal government to take up funding of capital projects for State High Courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal, The four Justices upheld the opposition of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) and two other senior lawyers, Mahmud Magaji SAN and Musibawu Adetumbi SAN on the issue. They upheld the arguments of Malami, Magaji and Adetunbi to the effect that capital projects for the three courts should be funded by the states and not the federal government. The apex court Justices specifically agreed with Adetunbi (SAN) who was one of the amici curiae, that the 1999 Constitution has sufficiently provided the manner the federal and states should fund their courts. They further upheld his submission that part of the load that the Constitution wants the Federal Government to carry is narrowed down in Section 84(7) while Section 121 also narrows down the load it wants the state governments to carry. Adetunbi's opposition against the Executive Order 10 and his prayer that It should be declared illegal, unconstitutional, voided and set aside was also upheld. The four Justices are Mohammed Musa Dattijo,Centus Chima Nweze, Hellen Ogunwumiju and Uwani Musa Abba-Aji. With the majority decision, the state governments are to continue fundings of the three courts as they have been doing since 1999. Attorney General of Abia State had, on behalf of 35 others dragged the AGF before the Supreme Court praying for an order to compel the federal government to take up fundings of capital projects for the three courts on the ground that they are the courts of the Federation and as such the funding of their capital project should flow from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. Their lead counsel, Chief Augustine Alegeh (SAN), had argued that the salaries and emoluments of the judges of the three courts are being paid by the federal government in line with section 81 of the 1999 constitution and as such the section should be invoked to place the responsibility of funding their capital projects at the doorsteps of the federal government. The state governments had in their joint suit also applied for an order of the apex court to compel the federal government to pay them N66 billion being an amount they have so far spent on capital projects for the 3 courts in their respective states. However, AGF, represented by Tijani Gazali SAN had vehemently opposed the request of the states and had urged the apex court to dismiss it. The AGF had predicated his argument on the fact that while the issue of salary and emoluments of the Judges of the courts are expressly stated in the 1999 constitution as the responsibility of the federal government, the section was silent on the capital project. He had canvassed that since the states have been responsible for the funding of Capital Projects of the courts since 1999, the position should be maintained. In the bid to resolve the constitutional logjam, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko had invited five Senior Advocates of Nigeria as Amici Curies (friends of court) for their input in resolving the matter. However, three out of the five SANs Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, Olisa Agbakoba and Chief Sebastine Hon had thrown their weight behind the request of the 36 governors. In their separate submissions, they had argued that the federal government should be responsible for the funding of capital projects for the three courts since they are courts established for the federation. Two other senior lawyers, Mahmud Magaji and Musibawu Adetumbi expressed dissenting views on the contentious issue. They had aligned themselves with the AGF that capital projects for the three courts should be funded by the states and not the federal government. YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE We Have Not Had Water Supply In Months ― Abeokuta Residents In spite of the huge investment in the water sector by the government and international organisations, water scarcity has grown to become a perennial nightmare for residents of Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital. This report x-rays the lives and experiences of residents in getting clean, potable and affordable water amidst the surge of COVID-19 cases in the state...Supreme Court nullifies Executive Supreme Court nullifies Executive Selfies, video calls and Chinese documentaries: The things you’ll meet onboard Lagos-Ibadan train The Lagos-Ibadan railway was inaugurated recently for a full paid operation by the Nigerian Railway Corporation after about a year of free test-run. Our reporter joined the train to and fro Lagos from Ibadan and tells his experience in this report...Supreme Court nullifies Executive Supreme Court nullifies Executive