The Nation Newspaper

Tag: executive

  • Model of legislature-executive relationship

    In a presidential system of government like ours, where the doctrine of separation of powers is deeply enshrined in our constitution, each of the three organs of government enjoys its independence. Indeed, the framers of the deliberately set out to ensure that both the doctrine of separation of powers and principles of checks and balances are adhered to so as to safeguard our democracy from tyranny and dictatorship.

    This is why the executive, legislature and the judiciary are all run and inhibited by different individuals in a manner stipulated by  law.

    As a student of constitutional law and politics, I have overtime come to understand and agree with the  fact that of  the three arms, the legislature enjoys enormous powers more than any other. Perusing through pages of the 1999 constitution, one easily notices that it is replete with so many powers to the legislature.

    While lawmaking is the primary responsibility of the parliament, there are also other powers, functions and responsibilities that are constitutionally discharged by the MPs.

    These include but are not limited to confirmation of nominated ministers, ambassadors and heads of parastatals, powers to investigate any matter, especially those under the exclusive legislative list, summon any person, quasi-judicial powers to investigate and indict, expose corruption, powers over the budget and appropriation or power to approve expenditure of government, confirmation of appointment of Judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, powers to impeach the president, and so on and so forth.

    The reason why the constitution accords the lawmakers such  powers and responsibilities is borne out of the fact that they are directly elected by the people. In other words, they represent the sovereignty of the people because in a democracy, sovereignty rests with the people.

    More than the two other organs of government, the legislators are the direct and number one custodians of the social contract and the parliament is the heart, nerve and hub of democracy without which there can be no democracy.

    More specifically, in Nigeria, where we have a bicameral legislature, whereas the Senate represents equality of states, the House of Representatives, on the other hand, represents equality of the people.  This is why there is hardly any tribe,  ethnic group or local government in Nigeria that does not have representation in the Green Chamber.

    This explains why the House is popularly referred to as the people’s chamber or House of the Nigerian people.

    Historically, this very important chamber has consistently been led by progressive young leaders and this tradition was upheld on June 9, 2015, when Barrister Yakubu Dogara was elected Speaker.

    Since his historic election, Rt. Hon. Dogara has not left anyone in doubt as to his philosophy, principles and leadership style. The Speaker strongly believes in dialogue, negotiation and consensus building, which are the cardinal pillars of his leadership.

    Today, the rancour and bitterness that trailed the election on June 9 last year have been effectively confined to the dustbin of history as a result of Dogara’s maturity, humility and politics of compromise, which saw the emergence of his opponents as leaders and chairmen of committees in the House.

    No wonder he has continued to enjoy enormous support and loyalty from his colleagues, who acknowledge his transparency and open-door policy.

    As one who opens new frontiers, the relationship between the House and the executive is more than cordial under Dogara’s leadership, as both the speaker and his colleagues are at peace with the ruling party and the government;  working together to deliver good to the people.

    It is his belief that the executive and the legislature must not fight or be engaged in a supremacy battle before they can work to move the nation forward.

    At every opportunity, he emphasises that the primary interest of leaders at all levels should be the people and not their ego or power tussle. At every fora, Dogara would make it clear that the bickering that characterised the relationship between the two arms of government in the past should never be allowed to rear its head again under the change administration of the APC because this government, which came on the promises of change, cannot afford to fail the people.

    Many pundits have asked: why is the parliament not slugging it out with the executive? Why is it that the legislature seems not to be utilising its powers to the fullest? Why is it that the House of Representatives does not adopt  confrontational approach in  relating with the executive? Why are they not fighting the executive?

    Speaker Dogara had cause to provide answers to these questions when he visited Olowo of Owo, Oba Dr. David Victor Folagbade Olateru- Olagbegi in Ondo State recently.

    The speaker underpinned the fact that the House under his leadership does not see their role or relationship as a confrontational one but that of support for whatever the executive is doing to lessen the burden of the Nigerian people and improve their living condition.

    “We don’t adopt a very confrontational posture just for the sake of proving that we have separate powers as allocated to us by the constitution, we cooperate more to ensure that good is delivered to the people,” he stated.

    He maintained that it is only when democracy is threatened that “we raise our voices”, adding, “I remember we have been doing that in this government. How we handled the crisis in Kogi State House of Assembly. It was actually an APC leader who led investigation into the matter and we condemned the impunity even as members of the ruling party. This is change we are talking about.ý”

    It is Dogara’s philosophy that as leaders, their primary responsibility is to work out solutions in the midst of crisis and not add to it or engage in petty squabbles, or issues that constitute distractions.

    Another clear example is the way and manner he handled the crisis that trailed the 2016 Budget as passed by the National Assembly. When concerns were raised by Nigerians and the executive on some provisions of the document, the Speaker adhered to the voices of the people and annouced that the House has resolved to re-examine the document.

    It is his belief that although the powers of appropriation as clearly stated in the constitution is vested in the National Assembly,  such powers should always be exercised with caution so that the public interest is not endangered.

    He has kept to his words, knowing well that working together, the three arms of government can deliver greater good for the greater number of Nigerians and lift them out of abject poverty since the primary purpose of government is the security and welfare of the people. This is also in line with his philosophy of non-confrontational approach to Executive-Legislature relationship.

    This is the change that Nigerians have been yearning for, the change they voted for and the change they need desperately in these difficult times.

     

    • Hassan is Special Adviser,  Media & Public Affairs to Speaker Dogara.

  • Legislature’s job not to prepare budget estimates for executive

    SIR: The current face – off between the Presidency and the National Assembly (NASS) over whether or not the President should sign into law the 2016 Budget passed by the National Assembly without the details of the heads of expenditure estimates allocated to Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAS) provides Nigerians a unique opportunity to reflect and determine once and for all, whether it is the duty of legislators to prepare estimates for MDAS. The current controversy has arisen because, according to reports, the NASS had sent “estimates of the budget” as passed to the President for signing into law while it was still working on the details of the allocations to the various MDAS. I strongly maintain the view that the duty of legislators is not to prepare the estimates of MDA’s but to vet and approve estimates of MDA’s presented by the executive. For the National Assembly therefore, to expect the Presidency to sign into law budget items without details of the allocations to spending MDA’s smacks of a fundamental breach to the doctrine of separation of powers. It seems the legislature is attempting to take over the responsibility for policy execution which properly belongs to the executive arm of government.

    Attempts to gloss over and compromise this fundamental principle of separation of powers in a presidential system are fraught with grave dangers for the realization of democracy and good governance anchored on unhindered access to information, accountability, and service delivery. For instance, if the President as the head of the executive arm has no prior information as to what the legislature allocates to a ministry as an executive agency, he may not be able to properly direct and co-ordinate programme implementation. Budget padding and financial leakages can easily go on undetected. Secondly, if the legislature allocates fund to projects not captured in the manifesto of the President, the legislature could find it difficult to hold it to account for performance, while the electorates who voted on the basis of the President’s manifesto are short changed.

    Moreover, the oversight role of the legislature could be held in suspect if it is perceived that it is the same legislature that initiated and sponsored the allocation outside the knowledge of executive, who is also going out for auditing. On the other hand, legislative oversight will be more meaningful if it is believed that it is being carried out with utmost integrity and desire to preserve the independence of the legislative arm.

    Considering the implications, our National Assembly has a duty to help strengthen our nascent democracy by conducting the management of public finance with strict discipline even though they may have the freedom to legislate on any and all aspects of governance. It is for this reason that Section 81(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended specifically states as follow:

    “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditures of the Federation for the next following financial year.”

    In other words, while the National Assembly has the power to pass the Appropriation Bill, due process and the doctrine of separation of powers demand that it should only pass the Bill on the basis of estimates duly prepared and laid before it by the President. The legislature ought not to presume and proceed to estimate and allocate monies the President does not ask for via an estimate presented by him. Unless those driving our on-going processes of evolving a culture of presidential system of government rooted in transparency, separation of powers, service delivery and accountability imbibe these fundamental disciplines, our journey to good governance could take longer than necessary.

     

    • Sir Sunday U. Akpan,

    Akwa Ibom State.

  • Progressive executive, reactionary legislature?

    What Nigeria’s National Assembly has morphed into an anti-people assembly is no news.  What is news is that leading lights in that reaction are now elements of the new progressive ruling party. When reactionaries wear progressive garb, what are they — progressive reactionaries?  Ha!

    Hardball’s Monday morning ire is stoked by The Nation’s story of March 4: “Lawmakers kill Buhari’s N500 billion for the poor”, which they claim is not a true reflection of their thoughts.  Guess the chief ideologue in that story?  Mohammed Danjuma Goje, chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriation, former PDP governor of Gombe State but now APC senator from Gombe.

    The senator, who in the story assumed the role of Mr. Fiscal Impossible, dismissed the N500 billion voted for the economic succour of most vulnerable Nigerians, in Budget 2016, as un-implementable. He spoke at a joint session of the Senate and House committees on Appropriation, en route to passing the 2016 Appropriation on March 17. At the briefing were Budget and National Planning Minister, Udo Udoma and Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun.

    The “can’t do” senator said the modalities to implement the N500 billion intervention were not clearly stated in the budget; said when it got to the market folk, the budget spoke of “market women” when in his native Gombe, all they had were “market men”.  He also dismissed the Buhari Presidency’s proposed school feeding programme as un-implementable, because most of them studied under trees due to lack of classrooms.

    Well, maybe that was the situation in Gombe when the senator was governor. But pray, how do Osun, under Rauf Aregbesola, which has implemented the scheme for more than four years now; and Kaduna, under Nasir El-Rufai, which has just started implementing it, do the magic — a clear magic, which could have been beyond the ken of the senator as governor?

    When will the Federal Government cease to be the big-for-nothing, dog-in-a-manger bully that cannot do but won’t allow others who can, do?  Never, if the reactionary notion of the National Assembly is allowed to stand.

    Mercifully, Budget Minister Udo Udoma made it clear that the intervention was an inviolate campaign pledge, suggesting deferring implementation was out of question. That is good because the President has a mandate, forged from these promises.  He takes the flak if things go wrong, not some feckless National Assembly.

    Even then, Senator Goje’s remark on the schools feeding scheme shows his basic lack of understanding of the programme. Like many of his over-fed and over-pampered compatriots, the senator focused on the freebie from the state: why should you feed pupils when their parents should do so?  Teach them to fish, they thunder that popular cliché in holy rage, but don’t give them fish!

    But what of the business chain in the process en route to the feeding: the livestock, grain and chicken farmers whose businesses would get a boost?  The food vendor who would recharge his or her economy, and have more disposable income?  And the increased money in people’s pockets, which can be spent to reflate the economy? O no, forget the process, the end result is freebie!

    O yeah? But when did freebies become a crime — when vulnerable Nigerian masses are beneficiaries? Listen to the same National Assembly, on January 4, exactly two months to The Nation report. The news was the N4.7 billion to be shelled on buying Nigeria’s 469 federal lawmakers cushy cars.

    “There is no way,” Senator Sabe Abdullahi exploded, “we can exercise our legislative functions, especially in the area of oversight, using our personal cars.” Progressive rage, isn’t it?

    These legislators should get real and wean themselves from their overarching sense of self-settlement. If the President cannot dictate to them when it concerns their personal comfort, they certainly cannot dictate to the President when it is the collective comfort of Nigerians.

  • NNPC sacks Group Executive Directors

    NNPC sacks Group Executive Directors

    •Directorates cut to four from eight

    All  the eight group executive directors at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) were sacked yesterday.

    Group Managing Director (GMD) Dr. Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu also trimmed the directorates from eight to four —for efficiency.

    President Muhammadu Buhari on Tuesday named  Kachikwu  GMD to replace  Dr. Joseph Dawha.

    The President’s mandate is for  Kachikwu to, among others, review the structure of the NNPC.

    A statement by the Group General Manager, Group Public Affairs Division, Mr. Ohi Alegbe, confirmed the retirment yesterday. The  GEDs are: Mr. Bernard Otti (Finance and Accounts); Dr. Timothy Okon (Acting GED, Exploration and Production who also doubles as Coordinator Corporate Planning & Strategy); Adebayo Ibirogba (Engineering and Technology); Dr. David Ige (Gas and Power); Ms. Aisha Abdurrahman (Commercial and Investment); Dr. Dan Efebo (Corporate Services); Ian Udoh (Refining & Petrochemicals) and Dr. Attahiru Yusuf (Business Development).

    The statement added that the “the new Group Managing Director of NNPC, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu, who personally conveyed the Federal Government’s decision to the retiring Group Executive Directors, expressed gratitude to them for their services to the Corporation and wished them success in their future endeavours.”

    The new directorates and their GEDs,  which are expected to be announced today barring any last minute change, are Refining and Engineering with Dr. M.K Baru; Exploration and Production, Denis Nnamdi; Commercial and Investment, Mr. Gbenga Komolafe, Mr. Isiaka AbdulRazak, Finance.

    It is also believed that the Managing Director of the Petroleum Product Marketing Company (PPMC), Mr. Haruna Momoh, has been relieved of his job, as part of plans to implement the biggest shake up in the history of the state-owned corporation.

    But, as at press time last night, Ohi told our correspondent that the Federal Government had not made any replacements for the retired GEDs.

    He said that the retired GEDs were appointed at different times between 2012 and last year.

    On year of appointment, he said:  ”They were appointed at different times. Some were appointed last year, some in the last two years and so on.”

    The NNPC spokesman said:  “No replacement yet. We will confirm that by tomorrow (today). What they are writing online is all speculation.”

  • EXMAN’s executive targets 25 per cent growth

    EXMAN’s executive targets 25 per cent growth

    Disturbed by the challenges facing its members, Experiential Marketers Association of Nigeria (EXMAN) has resolved to tackle them.

    Its President, Dr Rotimi Olaniyan spoke after the group’s second Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Abeokuta.

    He said the problems include dwindling revenue, reduced margin, and slow growth.

    Olaniyan said the agenda of the new Executive Council include the   growth and profitability to increase the sector’s market size.

    He said its targeted 25 per cent growth rate could be realised given the six critical goal areas set up to drive the process.

    He said this would be achieved in the next one year and to achieve these, the body would only worry itself about six critical goal areas.

    “First is revving the industry and basically protecting the industry from non-professionals, and secondly, it is about thought leadership. This is putting in place initiatives that would ensure that we maintain cutting edge as a practice and professional service industry,” he said.

    Other areas, Olaniyan believed, could spur the intended growth rate include improving the internal training capacity and focus on client engagement.

    “We will focus on client engagement as a critical issue. It is time for us to set up a proper forum to  to engage with clients and bring them up to speed with the challenges that we all faced,” he added.

    According to him, “Everybody in the experiential marketing industry is complaining; we have reduced margin; we have payment compensation terms that we don’t feel is adequate to cover our operational cost, not to talk about the little profit at the end of the day, which we can use to reinvest. So, there is a need for us to do some work in that area,” he said

    He, however, promised that in the next 30 days, the new leadership would unveil a document that would show the output that would be used to measure their performance in office.

    EXMAN’s immediate past president, Olagesin said his two years as foundational president had been fantastic. According to him, “it is never easy to take up the responsibility of leading a new association and starting from scratch. It has been very interesting, challenging as well as enjoyable, because laying the foundation and structure that would guide us going forward was never going to be an easy task.”

    The other new executives are Vice President, Wole Olagundoye; General Secretary, Kehinde Salami; Financial Secretary, Kayode Idowu and Publicity Secretary, Abiodun Oshinibosi.

  • Anambra LP elects executive

    Anambra LP elects executive

    Anambra State chapter of the Labour Party (LP) has elected new state executives.

    The 24-man executive will be chaired by Luke Ezeanokwasi and Rich Ejike Onuorah as secretary.

    The National Deputy Chairman (South), Chief Callistus Uju Okafor, while briefing reporters at the weekend in Awka, said the party congress began on April 22 in wards, the councils held theirs on April 24, while the state congress was held on April 26.

    He described the congress as peaceful; adding that it was the first time people witnessed such a peaceful atmosphere during congresses in the state.

     

  • Toyota gets first woman executive

    Toyota gets first woman executive

    Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) has promoted more foreigners to senior posts, including the first woman and first African-American to hold executive titles, diversifying a management team long dominated by Japanese men.

    The world’s biggest automaker appointed Europe chief Didier Leroy to become one of six executive vice presidents (EVP) effective after the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting in June. He would be the first foreigner to become a Toyota EVP, the highest post to be held by a non-Japanese.

    Toyota also named Julie Hamp, a senior official at Toyota Motor North America, as a managing officer, making the American the company’s first female executive. Christopher Reynolds, an African-American general counsel in North America, will also become a managing officer.

    Hamp’s promotion marks a step in Japan’s drive to narrow the gender gap in the workplace. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called on corporate Japan to appoint women to 30 percent of top jobs by 2020 – a target widely seen as unattainable and opposed by the country’s biggest business lobby.

    Women account for 11 percent of mid-to-senior level management in Japan and one percent of executive committee members, according to researcher McKinsey.

    Toyota has stood out for having few foreign executives – particularly compared with Nissan Motor Co (7201.T), led by Frenchman Carlos Ghosn – given that its home market makes up less than a fifth of its global sales.

    Seven of Toyota’s 57 executives are foreign. With the changes due in June, that number will rise to nine of 58.

     

    “We believe that discussion between people of various backgrounds creates new ideas and increased innovation,” Toyota said, referring to the introduction in 2013 of its first outside directors, including American and former General Motors Co (GM.N) veteran Mark Hogan.

    Frenchman Leroy is a senior managing officer as well as chief executive of Toyota in Europe. The 57-year-old, a one-time Renault SA (RENA.PA) official who joined Toyota in France in 1998, has long been seen as a candidate in the company’s efforts to elevate executives abroad to senior posts.

    As EVP, Leroy will be responsible for all developed markets at Toyota including Japan and North America.

    Hamp will become Chief Communications Officer, and Reynolds will be Chief Legal Officer and Chief Officer of Corporate Planning.

  • Executive versus Legislative Impunity

    Recently I have been wondering why members of the Peoples Demo
    cratic Party (PDP) neglect to parade with the Umbrella, the symbol
    of their party, just like the All Progressive Congress (APC) members do with the broom, their own party symbol. Well, whatever may be their reason, may I now humbly canvass for a reversal, as one ingenious way to boost the sagging national economy, reduce youth unemployment and enhance personal security, which ordinarily should be the major campaign issues for the 2015 general elections, were our politicians interested in issue related campaigns, rather than in the reign of impunity.

    Just imagine the millions of umbrellas that party members will buy, as the candidates slug it out at the ward congresses and the rancorous party primaries, not to talk of the national campaign across all the nooks and cranny of our country that will soon follow. Another major advantage will be that the umbrella may become handy weapons to settle the innumerable scores that the PDP primaries are throwing up. Contemplate if the distinguished PDP senators who have rambunctiously adjourned plenary to settle scores, over the primaries, with the overbearing executive at the state and federal, should all have their umbrellas during their rancor filled meetings.

    I guess that many of the Senators and members of the House of Representatives who now feel betrayed by the President and the Governors would joyously support my proposition, at least as one glaring empowerment program for their beleaguered constituencies. It will however be interesting should each Senator and Representative have an umbrella with its pointed tips, when they meet with President Goodluck Jonathan, to iron out the demand that each state must guarantee at least two automatic tickets for serving Senators, and probably also two thirds of the house tickets to the Representatives, to satiate their sense of equity, good conscious and democratic ethos. With the umbrella tips pointing, many of them would be humming, Sunny Nneji’s song: ‘if you do me, I go do you’.

    To show how precarious ordinary party primaries have become, and why everyone needs personal security, the distinguished Senators on the platform of PDP are threatening to commit patricide (impeachment proceedings against the President), should the President not use his executive powers to override the executive impudence of the state Governors, who have unscrupulously appropriated the ward delegates, to scheme the legislators out. Talk of impunity qua impunity, to produce distinguished lawmakers. But even as the Senators complain, they will remember that most of them rode to power, through the same process.

    To ensure that the President takes the matter seriously, the Senators have shot down plenary, as a way to force a violent abrogation of the democratic process to favour them. If they have their way, the President will order the state Governors to direct the delegates to return them as candidates whether they have performed in office or not; otherwise they will raise impeachable offences against the President. A case of quid pro quo. Who knows, as you read this piece, which was penned last week, the famous PDP umbrella, at least the big one at the head quarters may be spread, to calm their frayed nerves.

    As if in a conspiracy against the Nigerian state and worse still, her hoi polloi; the junior chambers are also on a forced long recess, in an attempt to stem the threat of impunity against the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, who recently defected from the PDP to the APC. While the Honourable Speaker may have the right to defect to the party of his choice; the makers of the constitution never envisaged that the entire lower chambers would be shot down, merely to assuage the potential threats that may arise from such a private initiative.

    While some have argued that Tambuwal ought to have resigned his position as the Speaker, if not his membership of the House, on moral grounds following his defection, they forget that politics has little regard for morality, especially in our clime. In fairness to the Speaker, the law does not automatically disenable him from remaining a Representative of the Tambuwal constituency, Sokoto, where there is division within his party, as he has claimed. But again the makers of the constitution did not envisage that a Speaker of the House of Representatives could abandon the majority party on whose platform he rode to power and defect to a minority party.

    In my view, under the 1999 constitution, it is legally possible for a Speaker or even a Senate President to emerge from an amalgam of minority parties, once the candidate can muster the required support of the majority of members of the relevant house to vote him or her into the leadership. But by practice under the presidential system of government, particularly in the United States of America which we are aping, the majority party produces the Speaker or the presiding officer of the Senate, since the Vice President is the President of the Senate.

    But even were there is conflicting opinions as to the position of the law, as we have experienced following the Tambuwal defection, it is very strange for a Police officer, regardless of the rank, to constitute himself into a court, to interpret the constitution, as the recently confirmed Inspector General of Police, Alhaji Suleiman Abba sought to do. In the least, his attempt to assume a magisterial diktat to interpret section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 constitution is an aberration, which further confirms the rise of impunity in the country. In answer to that executive lawlessness, some members of the House of Representatives are also threatening recourse to an impeachment proceeding against the President. As things are, the road to 2015 is obviously strewn with executive versus legislative impunities.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    ‘Executive must accord fiscal autonomy to Judiciary’

    The courts were shut for about three weeks – July 11-31 – because of what workers under the aegis of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) called the persistent refusal of the Executive, particularly in the states, to accord financial autonomy to the Judiciary. JUSUN President Comrade Marwan Adamu speaks with Eric Ikhilae on the strike and other issues.

    What is your take on the situation in Rivers State judiciary?

    We have been pushed to the wall. That was why we took the decision to go on strike in Rivers. We had embarked on strike in Rivers even before the nationwide strike.  And even with the suspension of the nationwide strike, we are not going to suspend the strike in Rivers until the problems created by the two elephants are resolved. The two elephants are the state (JSC) Judiciary Service Commission and the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    We at JUSUN, have no power over the appointment of Chief Judges and whoever is appointed as the Chief Judge, we will accept him,  we will work with him, we have no problem with that.

    So, why are your members on strike in the state?

    In Rivers, NJC appointed an administrative judge, they said we must work with him. We have no problem with that, we can work with him. But after the NJC’s appointment, another circular came from the state’s JSC and we, from the Chief Registrar down to the least person in the Judiciary are employed by the JSC of the state. So, if the JSC issued another circular, saying if anybody worked with this administrative judge, the person was on his or her own, and that such person would face disciplinary actions, there is a problem. Are we going to work with two masters at the same time?

    That was why we withdrew our services, coupled with the problems of security. You are a living witness to this. A particular court was bombed three times. On an occasion, the police confirmed a parcel found in the premises of the court as explosives. They did not remove it until it exploded and our members who reported it were arrested and detained for 21 days.  When NBA and JUSUN took the matter up, our detained members were taken to court and terrorism charges were instituted against them.  Up till now, the matter is still before the court.

    How do you think the logjam in Rivers’ Judiciary can be cleared?

     The way out is that both parties should do the right thing, which means they should do what the constitution says. There is no way you are going to appoint a Chief Judge in a state without the inputs of the NJC, state governor and the state House of Assembly. Let them do the right thing.

    Why did JUSUN embark on the nationwide strike?

    Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja delivered judgment on January 13 this year in our favour in the case in which we sought the interpretation of sections 81(3), 121 (3) and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The court ordered that the Accountants-General of the state and federation, Auditors-General of the states and the federation, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be served with that court order for them to ensure compliance with those provisions of the constitution. We did. They were all served.

    Sometimes in February this year, the union had a NEC (National Executive Council) meeting and issued a 21-day ultimatum to embark on strike. Before the expiration of the ultimatum, we were invited to a meeting by the Minister of Labour and Productivity, who I must acknowledge and appreciate for his efforts in this matter. He has put in his  best to ensure that this matter is resolved.

    At that meeting, we were persuaded not to embark on the strike on the understanding that we should give them time to study the court order and comply with it. We agreed. Towards the end of March, we issued a fresh 21-day ultimatum. The same thing happened. We were invited to a meeting. The NJC (National Judicial Council), the FJSC (Federal Judicial Service Commission), Wages and Salaries Commission and the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, were invited.

    When we saw they were still foot-dragging on their promise to abide by the judgment, we decided to go on strike.

    Do you mean most states are yet to obey the judgment?

    All the states are in default. None of them has complied with the judgment. Why we delayed before going on strike was to show that we are mature and not that we have interest in going on strike. We were interested in the amicable resolution of the issue.

    Before the federal judicial workers joined the strike, the Minister of Labour and Productivity called a meeting. The NJC was in attendance, with some directors and the Accountants-General of the Federation and we were asked to suspend the strike. We said JUSUN would suspend the strike if we get a cogent, concrete, presentable commitment from the government

    We are not saying you should pay the money now. But let us assume that if both the representatives of the Federal and State governments say that we agree there is a court judgment, give us one week, give us two weeks, give us one month, to comply with it, that is acceptable.

    The commitment should be in written form. It can no longer be in verbal form because we have had a number of verbal assurances which have failed.

    We were even given written memorandum which failed and more importantly the Accountant-General of the Federation caused about 25 per cent of the problem. Because the Constitution, in Section 162(9) provides that he (the Accountant-General of the Federation) should deduct the funds standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the budget from the source and pay same to the NJC for onward disbursement.

    Was that what the court judgment of January 13 said?

    Yes, the judgment affirmed it. That was what we went to court to seek interpretation for and the court ruled in our favour, upholding the provisions of the constitution. Even, if the Accountant General of the Federation feels that there is a clash in Section 121 or whatever, it is not for him to say it because he is not a court. If he is contesting the judgment, the right thing for him to do is to go back to court to challenge the judgment.

    In as much as he did not challenge the judgment, he has no moral right not to comply with the court order. If he deducts the money from the state governments’ funds from the source and any governor complains, he only has to say that he is relying on the court order.  It is now for the state governors to accept it or go to court to challenge the judgment. If anybody is not happy with the judgment, the person should go to the Court of Appeal and if the court says stay action, so be it.

    Has the Attorney-General of the Federation been involved in this matter?

    He is affected directly and his representatives have been coming to all our meetings with the Minister of Labour, and the position of the Ministry of Justice is one. It is that since there is a court order, it must be complied with if there is no appeal.

    That is the position of the Ministry of Justice. Maybe what the Attorney-General of the Federation should have done is to go further to invite his colleagues in various states, the Attorneys-General of the states, with a view to resolving this problem. But right now there are some few states, two or three, who are making contacts with the union on how to resolve the problem.

    Have representatives of the states been involved in your earlier meetings to resolve the problem?

     They have not been participating. None of them has been participating. The Minister of Labour kept mounting pressure on the union to call of the strike, to show how concerned we are,we said the Commissioners of Finance have a forum, and  they have a chairman; the Accountants-General of the states have a forum and they have a chairman, invite these two chairmen, let them come to the meeting. Let us meet with them and make a commitment.

    But we learnt that the Accountant-General of the Federation, because of the pressure on him, wrote a letter to the state governors, asking them  to comply with the court order. My problem with this letter, though the content of the letter sounds good and looks beautiful, but the question remains, which, between the court order and the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation has the greater binding effect?

    If a judge of competent jurisdiction makes an order and nobody is willing to respect it, should I as a unionist now rely on the letter of the Accountant-General of the Federation?

    What is the Accountant-General of the Federation expected to do as ordered by the court?

    What the Accountant-General of the Federation should do is to deduct funds meant for the judiciary directly from the state government’s allocation before releasing it to them. That is the position. Whether the court is correct or wrong, it is never my business, it is not the business of the Accountant-General of the Federation.  It is the business of the person whose money is deducted to go to court to challenge it. It is a simple issue.

    Were you bothered about the impact of the strike on litigants and awaiting trial inmates who are in custody and in need of court services to secure their freedom?

     We have been thinking of them and that is why for the last 10 to 15 years, whenever the situation of this nature came up, we were asked to consider them and we have been considering them. And nobody after the suspension of our strike is looking at our situation to ensure our demands are met.

    There is no way a judge can work effectively and deliver a sound judgment without a conducive environment. My problem is that people have failed to understand that it is not only the superior courts are courts. Go and see our magistrate’s courts, see our Area Courts, our Sharia Courts, or our Customary Courts, they are using rented shops and parlours.

    In what states do we have courts using rented apartments?

    That is the situation in virtually all the 36 states. I challenge anybody to contradict me; that is what is happening in virtually all the 36 states.  People do not even appreciate magistrates in the magistrate’s courts or sharia courts, and these are the people who can attend to 17 to 20 cases in a day. These are the people who take the cases of the ordinary men in the society.

    Do we then say that by this strike, the judicial workers are fighting the cause of judges and magistrates?

    We are not  fighting for anybody. We are fighting for the system. We are in this struggle because we are employed as staff of the judiciary.

     So, how are your members going to benefit from the fruit of the struggle if the Executive eventually comply with the judgment?

     Our members will benefit from the fruit of the struggle immensely. We desire a conducive environment to work where we can give the best. The service I am delivering will be improved. I will do my work with sincerity, honesty and with the best effect. Again, if we achieve the financial autonomy or financial independence in the judiciary, my welfare will improve.

    When the environment where you are working has all that qualify it to be called a good office, especially a court, you will discharge your duties effectively and with joy.

    Today, a litigant comes to court, the court is being rented in the house of the person suing him, and you are expecting him to get justice.

    We are not fighting for our pockets; we are fighting for the system, for the structure, for the judiciary to be a strong institution that it is supposed to be. The issue has always been that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man.

    How is the judgment obtained by a former NBA President, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), different from the one got by your union?

    We will come to the issues in the judgment obtained by Agbakoba anytime from October, November or December. That is when we will start seeing the effect of that judgment because that is the period budgeting processes will begin.  The judgment deals with the procedure of budgeting for the judiciary and we will see whether the Federal Government and the state governments will be adamant.

    From this year, JUSUN will never accept, we will not allow anybody to compromise the integrity and independence of the institution we are serving. Everybody is crying for democracy, and there is no way democracy will survive where impunity reigns. There is no way democracy will thrive without observing the rule of law.

    All we are saying is that our patience has been taken for granted for too long. We have been mindful of the institution we are serving that is why we don’t make comments on every issue, we don’t make pronouncement on every issue we don’t even go on strike because of all issues we have been controlling ourselves.