JUSUN Strike: A tale Of looking for a wetland in the
Sahara
The nation's judiciary has been beset by industrial actions
for the last one year. It is uncommon for the judiciary to be plunge into
industrial dispute, but following a judgment delivered by Justice Adeniyi
Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja on 13 January, 2014 where he declared that
the practice whereby funds of states judiciaries are disbursed through state
governments was unconstitutional, his Lordship asserted that the established
tradition where the executive arm of government disbursed funds to the judicial
arm through the executive was in contravention of Sections 83(1), 212(3) and
162(9) of the 1999 constitution.
The normal practice was that funds of the
judiciary should be disbursed directly to the National Judicial Council. The
Accountant-General of the Federation was subsequently ordered to rectify the
anomaly.
Further affirming the judgment, Justice Ahmed Mohammed of
the Federal High Court, Abuja
in a judgment delivered on 26 May, 2014 ordered that the National Judicial
Council should refrain from sending its budget estimates to the Budget Office
of the executive arm of government or indeed any body under executive authority
as it is presently being done.
Justice Mohammed further held that since the legislative
houses are never required to send their budget estimates to any executive
authority, there was equally no legal basis for the judiciary which is also an
independent arm of government, to send its budget estimates to any executive
authority.
The past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Aloma Mukhtar wrote to
all state governors and the FCT minister on the need for them to comply with
the judgment, she stated that the instalmental release of its annual allocation
was illegal and henceforth the judiciary was no longer required to submit its
budget estimates to the executive for inclusion as an item in its Annual
Appropriation Bill.
On that premise, the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN)
embarked on a strike in July, 2014 after there was no hint of compliance, this
was done in order to press home their demands for the executive arm of
government to implement a judgment which effectively granted financial autonomy
to the judiciary, and it was not appealed over one year after it was delivered.
That initial strike was called off, but in early January, it
was resumed after the government failed to fulfill previous commitments made.
However, after series of meetings, the Secretary to the Federal government, Anyim Puis Anyim promised that the government
would through the Accountant General of the federation transfer funds due to
the Judiciary directly to the National Judicial Council as was stipulated in
the Court judgment.
It was on this premise that the national president of the judicial
workers union, Marwan Adamu announced the suspension of the strike action. It
meant that the gates of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Federal High
Courts were finally opened for judicial activities.
However, the national
president made a key statement when he announced the suspension of the strike
in early February thus, that when the state chairmen of JUSUN get “commitments
of compliance” with the judgment from their respective state governments, they
can then suspend the strike at the state level. So far that compliance has been
akin to waiting for a taxi in the Kalahari.
Which means that, almost four months since the strike was
called off at the Federal level, the industrial action has persisted at the
state level with the exception of a handful of states.
Using Edo State as an
example, the gates of the State High Court has remain shut for three months,
and Judicial workers have equally not been paid their salaries during that
period. This has had several domino effects.
The situation has not only
paralysed judicial activities in courts, it has also left both clients, lawyers
and prison inmates awaiting trial in a state of labyrinth, to the point that
some legal practitioners have been left in the corridors of impecuniousness.
A friend and colleague recently recounted an episode of a
lawyer who has resorted to using his bus to transport passengers on an inter-state
route in order to foot his financial commitments. Inevitably, he was forced to
ask the lawyer cum, forced transporter: "has it gotten that bad?"
However, it does not need a soothsayer to see why some state
governments are not enamoured when it comes to complying with the judgment
delivered by the Federal High Court over a year ago.
Firstly one would have thought that this being an election
period means that some state governors would go an extra mile to do what would
warm it to the hearts of some as in the manner of some candidates that have
resorted to rehabilitating roads to court favour from the electorates. But some
of these governors tenure end in May, so they see no need to grant the
judiciary financial autonomy just a few months before they leave office.
At a time when some of them are complaining of the dwindling
revenue profile of their state, a situation contemplated by the Federal High
Court's Judgment would certainly not be appealing to them particularly as it
would mean that a large portion of a state revenue would have to be transferred
to the judiciary without recourse to the governor thereby foreclosing the present
practice of instalmental payment in the long term.
Going back specifically to the situation in Edo State, the
distrust between the judicial workers and the state government dates back
before the issue of autonomy came up, judicial workers in the state have gone on
strike on several occasions on reasons that bothers on their remunerations.
The autonomy issue has only served to add more twist to the situation. Many
by-standers and those in the legal profession in the state in particular and
the nation in general would have thought that a state governor that came to
office through the court’s validation of his mandate in 2008 after it was
stolen in the 2007 general elections would be more sensitive to the plight of
judicial workers in his state. It has been anything, but the opposite in that
regard.
The question then is; will a governor who was at loggerheads with
judicial workers before the issue of autonomy came up, be willing to grant that
autonomy? The answer obviously lies somewhere in-between.
Yet, this is purely a constitutional matter that has nothing to do with the whims and caprices of individual state governors even though they still have to approve it, which is where the problem lies. At a time when the Judiciary is already poorly funded, the situation has left the system at a nadir.
This is why the Bayelsa
State governor, Seriake
Dickson should be commended for granting that state's judiciary financial
autonomy long before the issue came up at the Federal High Court.
As far back as October 24, 2012, eight months after he
assumed office as governor, he signed the Judicial Autonomy Bill into law,
setting the tone for what became a national issue years after. It is easy to
see why the governor went down that route, as he is a lawyer.
But the same cannot be said of some governors who are also lawyers. Yet they have failed to align
themselves with reason.
At the moment, the war shows no sign of abetting, while the battle to secure autonomy through the court has been won, the signs of compliance from the various states government has become like a case of looking for
a wetland in the Sahara.
