By Matilda Ikediobi
Magaji Mato is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN. In this interview, Mato examined the constitutional, ethical and institutional dimensions of judicial independence.
Should the executive be responsible for welfare packages? At what point does the provision of welfare packages for the judges, either at the federal level or the state level, translate into compromise?
This is a clear and burning issue, but I think we have to look at it constitutionally. We run a system of separation of powers. We have three arms of government, and constitutionally, these three arms exist, though they work together, but they exist independently of the other. When you have the executive, you have the judiciary and you have the National Assembly. These are institutions that are independent of one another. Like it has always been said, the funding of the judiciary should be independent. They have a system where it will go through the appropriation, where it will go through the National Assembly. As far as the decency of the profession is concerned, the judiciary has no business accepting gifts or any form of enticements from the executive.
To put the point straight, the point of the executive giving them maybe gifts or building houses for them, these are things that shouldn’t be heard. And no matter how you try to put it or how you try to embellish it, the point remains that we are all human beings, judges are human beings like us. Any gift that comes through to the hands of a judge will definitely have a way of influencing his thinking, and definitely, by way of extension, his judgement over the person that offers such a gift. So it’s not something that should be tolerated, it’s not something that should be discussed in the system as it is.
What are the limits to gifts and public appearances by judges and what are the consequences where this is flouted?
If the right thing is to be done, there will be no point for the executive building houses for judges because the judiciary is an independent arm of government. The judiciary is supposed to have its independent funding. And if there is need for accommodations for all the judges, it should be looked upon by the Chief Justice of the Federation, who is the head of all courts in Nigeria. And they should have their independent means of procurement. They should be able to have their money independently and build houses for judges. If you look at the houses that were alleged to have been built or they have been built, it’s no longer an allegation because they have been commissioned.
There are 40 houses. And I was just looking at it, even in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, alone, we have over 66 judges. In the Federal High Court, we have over close to 100 judges. Who and who out of the judges or the justices will be given these houses? And what is the motive behind building 40 houses when you have over a thousand judges and justices in Nigeria? If the whole idea is not motivated by any factor, then definitely it should be every single judge in Nigeria that should be taken care of. Then we will know that obviously this one is not meant to pay back certain people.
If you go in the streets of Abuja at the moment, I have heard countless times from lawyers and other common citizens that a certain judge belongs to a certain person. What does that mean? This is a serious indictment on the judiciary. If you go to some court, they will tell you if you have a case against the minister in the federal court, it’s a no-go area.
This is an indictment. I mean, it doesn’t speak well, it doesn’t go well. Even with all due respect, the CJN tried to defend the issue, saying that the houses were not personal houses, they were meant to just assist the judges to do their work effectively. Then you just wonder how 40 houses will make all the judges of the FCT, the judges of the federal high court living in Abuja, the judges of the Court of Appeal, the justices of the Supreme Court do their job. It shouldn’t even be part of our system. The idea of the FCT minister building houses to donate to judges, shouldn’t be. It is not acceptable.
It was the late Niki Tobi that said, though the politicians are brothers to judges and justices, he said, but the relationship is not like the water of River Niger and River Benue, they will never meet, and it ought not to be. And he forbade the idea of judges and politicians coming together to wine and dine on the same table. Even as a judge, if such a thing is offered to you, you know very well that that thing has a negative influence, even on your own person, not to talk of influencing judgement against the individual that must have promoted your living condition, and then probably some are selected to be given the houses while others are still managing theirs. This is selective justice.
This is also not in tandem with what the drafters of the constitution envisaged right from the word go. And I think it’s not something that should be encouraged in any form. Like I said, if that should be done, then all the judges, not just in Abuja, because this money belongs to all of us, all the judges and all the justices in Nigeria should be given such an opportunity. It should be equal, even if it is not personal, They should also enjoy it for the time they are serving Nigeria. But where you just take 40 judges out of almost a thousand judges or even more in Nigeria, and you are giving them a mansion where they have all the luxury together, I think it shouldn’t be in place.
What do you suggest? Is it a process where justices can be open to house loan, where they can use the money to buy the homes themselves or the state should provide it? What model do you think will have been best?
My model is simple. It is that model that has been laid down by our constitution. The constitution has made the judiciary an independent body. It is not subject or answerable to the executive. If for any reason, welfare of judges is paramount to the executive or to Nigerians, then I expect that all funds geared towards the welfare of judges and justices in Nigeria should be allocated or appropriated to the judiciary. Like I said, there are heads of courts.
We have the CJN, who is the head of courts in Nigeria, and she is also one of them. She knows where the needs of judges and justices arise, and she knows what to do. The point is, if these monies were appropriated to them, they can contract the building of such houses independently, without any form of influence, without any form of sedition.
So what I suggest is what exactly the constitution has envisaged, that you make them as independent as the constitution has made them, and do not in any way use material things or monies to subjugate them to the whims and caprices of the executive. You have the money in essence, the judiciary is crying out that there is no money to even sustain their basic welfare. The judiciary has no money to acquire modern facilities to run their adjudicatory activities well. Yet, the executive is lavishing on monies and building houses for anybody they feel they choose to do. It’s not a very difficult situation we find ourselves in. The law is there.
The constitution has laid down the principle. It has made the judiciary an independent body. Make them not only independent on the paper or on the face of the statute, make them financially independent. And that will be the solution. Once they have the money, they know what to do with the money. The executive is no more a lighting or does not know a form of luxury than the judiciary.
The judiciary are also Nigerians. So give them whatever is due to them and let them decide what to do with it. It’s not the executive that should be deciding who to build a house for, who not to build a house for. No matter how you christen the idea of building 40 executive houses in Nigeria where you have over 1,000 judges and justices, you cannot but fail because you cannot justify that act. And like I said, whether we like it or not, it has a negative influence, not only on the citizens, but even on the justices themselves.
