THIS would seem to be a season of anomie in the judiciary. Quite a few unprecedented events have rocked that arm of government lately. While it has yet to recover from the Department of State Security’s invasion and raid of the homes of some judges of the federal courts in ungodly hours few months ago on allegations of corruption, federal court judges are reportedly battling with the agony of unpaid salaries. It is yet unclear how the judiciary arrived at this dire straits because it is statutorily on a first-line charge, but the turn of events is bad and most unwelcome, whatever the cause. The extant arrangement which is backed by law is the release of the judiciary’s funds to it directly so as to insulate it from executive interference. The idea is to have a fire-sure approach that preserves the independence of the judiciary and, more importantly, the integrity of judges in the execution of their very sensitive and delicate assignments.
However, with the alleged episode of unpaid salaries, the independence of the judiciary has been surreptitiously impaired as its leadership had to defer to and go cap in-hand to the executive branch to release funds to pay federal court judges. The situation was perhaps worse than the public had reckoned with because an unconfirmed report had it that all federal workers of the judiciary, and not the judges alone, were affected by the unpaid salaries. Though the information in the public domain is that the judges were being owed a backlog of four months’ salaries and allowances, there are indications that only December fund allocation for salaries of the judges, other judicial workers and overhead was yet be released by January 20, 2016.
There is even an unconfirmed report that the fund has now been released and that payment has commenced. But even then, why did the Federal Government wait until the polity was already overheated with the unsavoury story of judges’ unpaid salaries before arranging for the release of funds? Why did it take the Senate’s intervention and setting up of a probe panel before efforts were made to clear the mess? Even if the salaries and allowances being owed were those of December alone, it is unconscionable for the Federal Government to owe judicial workers and in particular judges, while other federal workers were paid their emoluments regularly and punctually.
The implication is that during the Christmas and New Year festivities, the judges of federal courts and their family members were denied funds to defray the usually high expenses of the festive period. That was unfeeling and unacceptable, especially as it appeared quite avoidable.It is rather sad that this unusual and undesirable turn of events was the lot of a crop of erudite and intellectually sound minds who are ethically prohibited from ventilating their grievances in public. A labourer deserves that his or her wages be paid regularly and punctually, especially a judge who carries the burden of onerous assignments that require utmost diligence and integrity.
The nature of the assignment of judges is such that demands sacrifice, discipline and some form of regimentation that necessarily limits their social networks. The truth is that the question of alternative sources of honest income for disciplined judges does not arise and that is why it is imperative that their salaries and allowances be paid regularly to obviate possible exposure to temptation. Added to this is that the very demanding and engaging job of judges abhors any form of distraction, especially those occasioned by deprivations and lack that ordinarily should not have happened in the first place. Therefore, notwithstanding the obvious consequences on the Federal Government’s finances of the lingering economic recession in the land, there are certain categories of bills it must necessarily prioritize and pick without fail and the cost of funding the judiciary comes under this category. Indeed, it amounts to a contradiction in terms if judges are being owed salaries and allowances at a time when the focus of anti-corruption campaign is very sharp on the judiciary.
The impression should not be given that there are some vested interests within the government circles who would want the judges to be enticed and influenced, and are uncomfortable with the cardinal principle of independence of the judiciary. Yet it is in the best interest of all that the judiciary is strong and independent, with financial autonomy, so that judges in particular do not pander to the dictates of the other arms of government or the rich and the influential in the society. The alternative is a veritable recipe for self-help and anarchy: a judiciary that is populated by deprived, pliable and corrupt judges who will not care a hoot while standing justice on its head.
and then