The Nation Newspaper

Tag: judgment

  • Don seeks review of judgment

    The Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan (UI), Prof Adeniyi Olatunbosun, has called for the legal review of judgment on crimes.

    He made the call at an inaugural lecture, entitled: “Tough on crime but soft on justice” at the Trenchard Hall, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    He said: “The subject of crime is an important issue, widely discussed, but its mode of treatment is often ignored.

    “The challenge is for those interested in the study of crime to continue to research and come up with functional ideas.

    “Much creative efforts and programmes have to be put in place if we are to protect our society from crime.

    “Court rulings should be treated as subservient handmaids to justice not as omnipotent masters at war with justice.

    “Tougher laws have failed to stem the tide of categories of crimes in our society. The courts have not been dispensing justice to the satisfaction of the public.

    “There are instances of delayed justice, non-completion of high profile cases of corrupt practices and prolonged trials.”

    In order to address judiciary ills, the don stated that the independence of the judiciary should remain unassailable.

  • Judgment on hijab against the Constitution, says MSSN

    Judgment on hijab against the Constitution, says MSSN

    The Lagos area unit of the Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria (MSSN) has described the decision of the Ikeja High Court to uphold the ban of hijabs in primary and secondary schools in the state as a rape on the constitution.

    Justice Grace Onyeabo last Friday ruled against the MSSN suit against the Lagos State government, saying such practice would affect the secular nature of state.

    The MSSN rejected the judgment, saying it would deny Muslim students their rights to observe a practise of their religion.

    The Amir (president), Kaamil Kalejaiye, accused the judge of neglecting facts and misinterpreting the law, stressing that the Constitution and international charters guaranteed the freedom of religion of everyone.

    Kalejaiye said: “It is shameful that the judge denied the students a right that is not only godly but also supported by the Constitution. Do we call that a misinterpretation of the constitution or rape on the law? We want to believe that the judge’s wisdom is not above the provision of the constitution. While we remain undaunted and won’t relent on our resolve to get female pupils dress according to Islam tenets, we reject in totality the judgment and urge every Muslims to do so.”

    The MSSN said it was only demanding enforcement of the right of Muslim student and not a favour from the government. Kalejaiye said the Society had started consultation with members and sympathisers, including parents to prepare for the next line of action.

    Kalejaiye insisted that the judgment was not fairly served, noting that the action of the government to allow the use of hijab during Islamic Religion Knowledge classes and Jumaat prayer showed that it was permissible.

    He added: “There is contradiction in the judgment and the provisions of the Constitution. While the judge claims that Nigeria is a secular state, the Constitution recognises two major religions, which are Islam and Christianity. It must be noted that the government finances the schools with tax paid by our parents and indirect tax by us. So, we have rights to demand for what is lawful under the Constitution.”

    The MSSN Amirah (female leader), Hafsah Badru, said hijab could not distort the secularity of the state. She said there had not been punishment for harassment of Muslim pupils for using hijab.

    “Some states in the Southwest, such as Ekiti have granted the use of Hijab in schools and they don’t have problem with maintaining their secularity as claimed by the judge. Why should Lagos be different? Wearing hijab is constitutional and must be seen as such,” Hajia Badru said.

    The counsel to the MSSN, Chief Gani Adetola-Kassim (SAN), said the Society would appeal the judgment.

    Adetola-Kassim said: “The court has spoken, but there are many issues to be considered, which means that we will appeal the judgment. We are simply not satisfied with the court decision. The angle through which the court looked at the issue was at variance with the provisions of the constitution. We will definitely appeal.”

  • ALSCON: ‘Firm ready to meet judgment conditions’

    The BFI Group Corporation has said it would meet the conditions contained in a Federal High Court judgment which ended the 10-year dispute between it and the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) over the sale of Alummiun Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON).

    The firm’s Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Reuben Jaja, said his company would meet its side of the sale agreement once the BPE complies with the judgment.

    Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati delivered the verdict on September 30.

    “We have always been ready to take over as the core investor in ALSCON. I assure you that we have no difficulty in paying the 10 per cent of the purchase price within 15 days once the BPE executes the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) as ordered by the court,” Jaja said.

    Justice Abdulkafarati, in the judgment, ordered the BPE to among others, “fully enforce, fulfil and give effect to the meaning and intendment of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in appeal No: SC 12/2008 dated July 6, 2012 by signing and executing forthwith, ‘the mutually agreed Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).”

    He ordered that by the SPA, BPE should sell ALSCON to the applicant (BFI Group) at a purchase the price of $410million. The judge further ordered “that the respondent (BPE) shall accept 10 per cent of the purchase price or $41m to be paid within 15 days of this enforcement order. The balance of $369m is to be paid as per the audited financial statement as at the date of this judgment, September 30, 2014.”

    The judgment was on the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/901/2013 filed BFI Group, with BPE as the respondent. The suit was for the enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 6, 2012 in appeal No: SC/12/2008.

    Justice Abdulkafarati emphasised the order in the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 6, 2012 “compelling and mandating the respondent to forthwith take full control of ALSCON from anybody, protect it from any further attack and prepare it for handover/transfer to the applicant, subject to the payment by the applicant of the consideration provided for in the judgment of the Supreme Court.

    To further give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the judge, by way of consequential reliefs, ordered that the applicant (BFI Group), it’s employees and agents have full, uninterrupted, unrestricted access to ALSCON to conduct a first-hand assessment of the business affairs of the company, including engineering, technical, financial, environmental, among others, as requested by the applicant

    Justice Abdulkafarati also ordered the Inspector General of Police and all other security agencies to ensure that the orders are fully enforced.

    The dispute had begun in 2004, when the BPE purportedly sold ALSCON to another company – UC RUSAL – even when BFI Group emerged the preferred bidder. BFI Group went to the Federal High Court, Abuja in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/583/2004 to seek an order of specific performance mandating the BPE to sell ALSCON to it in accordance with the terms of the understanding/agreement for the sale of ALSCON dated May 20,2004.

    The High Court and Court of Appeal refused to grant its prayers. It headed for the Supreme Court, which granted the prayers in the judgment dated July 6, 2012.

    The Supreme Court’s judgment included among others:

    *An order of specific performance is hereby decreed directing the respondent to provide the mutually agreed Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) for execution of the parties to enable the plaintiff/appellant pay the agreed 10 per cent of the acceptable price of $410million (that is $41m) within 15 working days from the day of the execution of the SPA in accordance with the agreement dated 20/5/2004 and the balance 90 per cent of bid price shall be paid within 90 calender days.

    *an order for the defendant/respondent to accept 10 per cent of the bid price from the plaintiff/appellant within 15 days from the day of signing the SPA.

    *an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent, it’s agents and management from inviting ant further bidding for the sale and acquisition of ALSCON in violation of the contract between the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent and or from negotiating to sell, selling or transferring or handing over ALSCON to any person or persons in violation of the contract between the plaintiff/applicant and the defendant/respondent.

    The apex court equally ordered the respondent shall pay N50,000 cost to the appellant.

     

     

  • Voters’ register: Court fixes November 25 for judgment

    Voters’ register: Court fixes November 25 for judgment

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 25 for judgment in a suit seeking to void the voters’ register produced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in preparation for the coming elections.

    Justice Ibrahim Auta chose the date last Thursday after listening to the parties.

    The suit filed by a firm, Bedding Holdings Ltd (BHL), has as defendants, INEC, its Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

    Plaintiff’s lawyer, John Okoriko, argued that INEC and its agents were in breach of sections 2, 3 (3), 19, 25 and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act and an earlier judgment of the court delivered on January 28 by conducting voters’ registration, using his client’s patented process, without its prior consent.

    The court in the judgment declared BHL as the owner of patent rights No: RP16642 and copyrights designs No: RD13841 over Electronic Collapsible Transparent Ballot Boxes (ECTBB) and patent rights No: RP NG/P/2010/202 – Proof of Address System/Scheme (PASS) – embedded with the concept of the coded mental plate – and their application for the process of producing voters’ register.

    BHL in the suit argued that INEC infringed on its patent rights by consistently utilising its patented inventions for the process of producing voters’ register, using the Direct Data Capture (DDC) machines without its prior consent, an argument the court upheld.

    The court awarded N17.3billion damages against INEC, Jega and AGF for the infringement and ordered them to always seek prior consent of the patentee -BHL – before using the invention, failing which any act for which it was deployed would be rendered a nullity.

    The plaintiff stated in a supporting affidavit that rather than first obtain its consent, as ordered in the January 28 judgment, the defendants proceeded to engage in voters’ registration for the last elections in Ekiti and Osun states and the 2015 general elections, in breach of its rights.

    BHL’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sylvester Odigie, said in the supporting affidavit that it has become a pattern with INEC and Jega to disregard court judgments.

    He cited a judgment given in his company’s favour on the ownership of the patent right over the transparent ballot boxes being used for elections by INEC, which the electoral body has refused to obey.

    Odigie urged the court to grant the prayers as contained in the suit, as a way of protecting its integrity, halting arbitrary conduct on the part of the defendants and in the interest of justice.

    BHL is seeking an order nullifying the voters’ register produced by INEC for the governorship elections in Ekiti and Osun states and other future elections, using the plaintiff’s patented process without its consent.

    It also seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from further infringing on the patented rights as confirmed in the January 28 judgment, by utilising the patented process for voters’ registration without first obtaining its consent.

    The plaintiff wants a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of sections 2, 3 (3), 19, 25 and 26 of the Patent and Designs Act, and the subsisting judgment of the court delivered on January 28, INEC cannot use its (plaintiff’s) patented process for voters’ registration.

    It also seeks a declaration that the continuous voters’ registration exercise being carried out by INEC towards future elections, without seeking the plaintiff’s prior consent, is an infringement on its patented rights as confirmed by the January 28 judgment.

    The defendants have denied infringing on the plaintiff’s rights and violating any subsisting judgment. They urged the court to refuse the plaintiff’s prayers and dismiss the suit.

    Arguing the counter-affidavit filed by INEC and Jega, their lawyer, Ebuka Nwaeze, said the judgment on which the plaintiff relied in filing the suit is on appeal.

    INEC and Jega argued that issues raised in the suit have “been litigated upon and are subject of appeal  before the Court of Appeal.

    “There is no statute, agreement or enforceable instruments by which the claimant (plaintiff) is entitled to be consulted, its consent obtained before using ballot boxes now being used at elections in the country.”

    They said the Minister of Trade and Investment, Olusegun Aganga, on March 17 granted them “the right to use the patent being claimed by the claimant.”

    INEC and Jega argued that the suit “brought in bad faith” is an attempt to harass and intimidate them.

  • Family asks court to set aside consent judgment on father’s estate

    Family asks court to set aside consent judgment on father’s estate

    Children of the late Dr Oladipupo Popoola Sogbetun have approached a Lagos High Court, Igbosere, for an  order to set aside the consent judgment entered by Justice Oluyinka Gbajabiamila on October 5, 2010.

    The children, who alleged fraud in the process of securing the consent judgment,  also asked the court to set aside  steps taken concerning  their late father’s estate.

    Some of them, who are claimant in the suit are , Mrs Bolaji Delano; Mrs Omolara Bamgbose; Mrs Foluso Ishola; Ms Sumbo Sogbetun and Ms Debola Sogbetun.

    Joined as defendants are: Ms Adeola Sogbetun (first defendant); Mr Osokayode Sogbetun (second defendant); Barin Epega&Co (third defendant)  and Probate Registrar (fourthdefendant). They also included anyone acting through defendants, or on their behalf, to deposit in court the title documents of all properties forming part of the estate of late Dr  Sogbetun.

    The consent judgment, which they want the court  to set aside, provided that the estate of the deceased should be wound up and all the properties( excluding those expressly mentioned) sold and proceeds from the said sale shared equally amongst the beneficiaries named in the Will dated August 17, 1979 upon, which Probate NO. PHC/27574 dated November 15,1996, was granted by the High Court of Lagos State.

    The judgment amongst others provided that the joint firms of Clarks & Moore and Yinka Mosanya & Co (counsel to all parties) shall, in relation to the estate, deal with all legal matters in Nigeria and all title documents to the properties be handed over to the Solicitors for safekeeping

    In a motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 39 of the Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules 2012, the claimants/applicants are asking  the court to restrain the defendants/respondents, their privies acting through them or on their behalf, from managing, administering, interfering, dealing or selling/entering into possession of any property forming part of the estate of the deceased pending the determination of the suit.

    The claimants, in the motion filed on August 11, by their counsel, Kennedy Atuenyi of J.D Oloyede’s Law Chambers, want the court to appoint an administrator pendente lite to oversee the estate, pending the determination of the suit.

    They also prayed the court for an order directing the defendants to deposit the title documents of all properties forming part of the estate of the late Dr  Sogbetun in court.

    In an affidavit in support of the motion deposed to by Lateef  Ayeni, a counsel from Oloyede’s chambers, the claimants averred that they, together with the second defendant, had instituted an action against the first defendant, in Suit N0; M/548/07, to seek the court’s intervention and respite to check the wrongful administration and management of their late father’s estate.

    In the earlier suit,  they were represented by the law firm of Clark & Moore as applicants, while  Yinka Mosanya &Co represented  the defendants.

    According to them, both parties were disposed to settling the matter amicably, which resulted  into the purported terms of settlement dated September 20, 2010, prepared by their counsels.

    They, however, contended that the purported  terms, which was filed in court, was at variance with the true intendment of the parties and therefore, alleged it to be a fraud.

    The terms of settlement, according to them, was signed by the claimants’ counsel in that suit without their authorisations and that both parties were not privy to the said terms before the same was filed on their behalf.

    They further contended that the said  terms of settlement was moved to be entered as judgment in that suit by the parties’ counsel without the instruction and/or consent of the claimants,

    They also contended that  the said  terms of settlement was entered as the judgment of the court on October 5, 2010.

    They averred that despite several admonitions by the claimants to the third defendants (Barin Epega &Co) not to go ahead with the sale of the properties comprising the estate of their late father, the third defendant went on with the sale of the properties and has in fact, sold one of the properties at Itire with the collusion of first and second defendants regardless of the claimants herein’s objection to same.

    They, therefore, want a declaration that the consent judgment entered pursuant to the aforesaid  terms of settlement on October 5,2010 by Justice Gbajabiamila in the aforesaid suit No. M/548/07 is null, void and of no effect whatsoever, because it was obtained or procured fraudlently.

    They further want an order of perpetual injunction, amongst others, to restrain the defendants and/or anyone acting through them or on their behalf from managing, administering, interfering, dealing in and/or selling any property, forming part of the estate of late Dr Oladipupo Popoola Sogbetun and a penalty of N1 million against the first, second and third defendants. Also, in a letter to the third defendant, Barin Epega and  Company by the claimants’ counsel,  the law firm was asked to refrain from any further attempt at selling or dealing in properties comprised in the estate pending the outcome of proceedings taking out to nullify the consent judgment.

    The law firm, in its reply dated October 29, 2013, said the facts culminating in the consent judgment as well as an examination of the case filed belied the facts raised by the claimants that  the winding up of the Estate was a germane trust of their instruction to counsel.

     

     

  • Strike stalls judgment in Ogbulafor’s trial

    Strike stalls judgment in Ogbulafor’s trial

    Court workers’ strike stalled yesterday the scheduled judgment in the trial former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Vincent Ogbulafor, and another accused person.

    Justice Ishaq Bello of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, Abuja, on June 24, scheduled judgment for yesterday after entertaining the final arguments of the parties.

    When our correspondent visited the court yesterday, its gate was locked. The security personnel on duty said the court would remain locked until the strike is called off by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN).

    Ogbulafor and former Secretary of the National Economic Intelligence Committee, Emeka Ebila, are being tried by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on a 16-count of money laundering and fraud involving about N170 million.

    The ICPC arraigned the duo on May 10, 2010, alleging that Ogbulafor, while serving as Minister of State for Special Duties in 2001, conspired with the others to float three fictitious companies with which they perpetrated the fraud.

    The accused were alleged to have used Henrichiko Nigeria Limited, DHL Consultants and Chekwas Industries to fraudulently obtain N82.6 million, N11.5 million and N6.2 million in 2001.

    Ogbulafor was also accused of using his position as the head of the National Economic Intelligence Committee, set up to verify debts owed local contractors, to okay as genuine, several forged documents.

    He was alleged to have relied on the forged documents to certify that the three fake companies successfully executed jobs worth N104 million.

    The former PDP chairman was also alleged to have collected N2 million and N28 million kickbacks from Ebilah.

    The offences contravene Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000.

    Ogbulafor’s lawyer, John Egwuonwu, while adopting his final written address on June 24, urged the court to discharge and acquit his client on all the counts.

    He averred that the prosecution’s case failed to link his client to the crime.

    Egwuonwu urged the court to jettison the allegation in Ebila’s “confessional statement” that the sum of N28 million was paid to Ogbulafor with two bank drafts.

  • Ngige: Appeal Court reserves judgment

    Ngige: Appeal Court reserves judgment

    The Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal yesterday reserved judgment in an appeal brought against the ruling of the Anambra State Tribunal by Senator Chris Nwabueze Ngige, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    It prayed the higher court to overturn the final judgment of the tribunal and nullify the governorship elections of November 16, 2013, later extended to November 17 and November 30 of the same year.

    “Judgment is hereby reserved till a date that will be communicated to learned senior counsel and other counsel,” said Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, who presided over the five-man panel that adjudicated on the appeal yesterday, even as a nationwide strike of judicial workers is on.

    Ngige and APC argued on the basis of a brief based on 17 grounds of appeal through the lead counsel, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), who submitted  that the constitutional provision that the display of a voter register must be done within 60 days to the election, and the publication of the corrected register to be used for the election must be done before 30 days to the election.

    Joined in the matter are the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Anambra State, Chief Willie Obiano, candidate of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and APGA itself.

  • Appeal Court sets aside Offa monarch judgment

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, yesterday set aside the 2012 judgment of the high court dismissing the counter-claim of one of the claimants to the Olofa of Offa stool.

    In its cross appeal, the Anilelerin ruling house  approached the court, praying it to declare that there is no rotation to Olofa’s stool; a declaration that only Anilelerin ruling house exists and a declaration that the State Gazette of 1970 is not statute-barred.

    The Court of Appeal also declined to comment further on the matter as it is before the Supreme Court.

    The appellate court affirmed the existence of two ruling houses in the ancient town.

    The two ruling houses are Anilelerin and Olugbense.

    The appellate court in July, last year declared the selection and installation of the Anilelerin candidate, Alhaji Mohammed Mufutau Gbadamosi, as the Olofa of Offa as illegal.

    The state High Court sitting in Offa in 2012 dismissed the counter-claim of Anilelerin ruling house as statute-barred, though the trial court had declared legal Gbadamosi’s selection and installation.

    Mr. Justice Suleiman Akanbi of the High Court said: “The people of Offa and honest kingmakers, guided by their conscience, are to determine the Olofa of Offa.

    “The gazette, which gives room for the two ruling houses to exist, was ominously silent on rotation.

    “What then is the business of the court to do otherwise?”

    But in a unanimous judgment, the three-man panel, led by Justice A. G Mshelia, said the “manner in which the judge handled the counter-claim was inequitable and perverse”.

    Other members of the panel include Justice A Jauro and Justice R.N Pemu.

    The judgment, which was read by Justice Pemu, added:  “The aspect of the judgment that says the counter-claim is statue-barred is hereby set aside”.

    On the gazette (Exhibit J), which was made by the military government of Kwara State in 1970, the appellate court said it was decided in the earlier judgment of this same court, adding that that  is covered by issue estoppels.

    The court added “that the issue is now before the Supreme Court in the appeals by the deposed Oba and that  by kingmakers.

    “That issue is the paramount issue and the court can no longer decide on it.”

  • Judgment in hijab suit Sept 26

    Justice Modupe  Onyeabo of a Lagos High Court, Ikeja has fixed September 26, for judgment in a suit filed by the Muslim Student Association of Nigeria (MSSN) against Lagos State Government over the use of Hijab by female Muslim students in the state’s primary and secondary schools.

    Justice  Onyeabo fixed the date after counsel to MSSN, Gani Adetola-Kaseem (SAN) and the Lagos State Solicitor-General, Lawal Pedro (SAN) argued and adopted their written submissions.

    The MSSN had sued the state government to court over the restriction of the use of the Hijab, on the ground that it violates their fundamental human rights.

    The Muslim students also argued that banning female students from using Hijab on or outside the premises of any educational institution in Lagos State “is wrongful and unconstitutional”.

    The MSSN had filed the case against the State Government along with two pupils, Miss Asiyat Abdulkareem and Miss Maryam Oyeniyi, who are the first and second applicants respectively.

    The two pupils, who are students of Atunrashe Junior High School, Surulere, Lagos State joined the suit as claimants through their fathers – Alhaji Owolabi Abdulkareem and Mr. Suleiman Oyeniyi.

    The defendants in the suit are the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, and Commissioner for Education, Mrs. Olayinka Oladunjoye and Commissioner for Home Affairs and Culture, Mr. Oyinlomo Danmole.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter last week, counsel to

    MSSN, Mr. Gani Adetola-Kaseem(SAN)  maintained that the essence of wearing Hijab by Muslim female is to prevent them from tempting people of the opposite sex or being tempted by them and also to protect their chastity as required by their religion, Islam.

    The lawyer also submitted that from Islamic point of view, womanhood is determined not by biological age or marriage but by the time a person has attained the age of puberty.

    He further stated that scientifically and from experience, the attainment of puberty varies between individual. Some females attain puberty as early as the age of nine years while others attain puberty at age 13 or more.

    Adetola-Kaseem contended that it is mandatory for all Muslim who have attained puberty to participate fully in the practice of Islam, including Islamic dressing mode, worship and fasting.

    He therefore urged the court to grant the application because the position of the Lagos State Government violate the religious rights of the applicants and it is the duty of the court to protect them.

    But the Solicitor General, Mr. Lawal Pedro(SAN) who represented the defendants argued that the wearing of uniforms in public primary and secondary schools is for identification of students from different schools in Lagos and that the standardised set of dress for students is meant to encourage a sense of unity, discipline organisations and orderliness the schools.

  • Good judgment

    Good judgment

    •We hail court’s decision on financial autonomy for judiciary, but the issue now is good faith 

    WILL the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, in the budgetary process as it concerns the national judiciary, bring that disconcerting national debacle to a close? We are afraid that this can only happen, if all the parties concerned show good faith. In the judgment of Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a suit brought against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the National Assembly as Defendants, by the former President of the Nigeria Bar Association, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), the court declared as unconstitutional the process of sending the judiciary’s annual budget to the budget office, which is under the executive arm of government.

    In arriving at this important judgment, the court relied on the relevant provisions of sections 81(2) and 84(1)(2)(3)(4) and (7) of the 1999 constitution, as amended. As reported in the press, among other decisions, the court granted a perpetual injunction against the Defendants from all practices on the funding of the judiciary that offend the provisions of the constitution. The court also ordered that the budget of the judiciary, being a ‘charge upon the consolidated revenue fund of the federation’, should be sent directly to the National Assembly, instead of the budget office, to be included in the appropriation act, as it offends section 81(2). These are fair decisions and should not pose any problem.

    The challenge however will be in the implementation of the order of the court, with respect to the constitutional provision in section 81(3) that “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the consolidated revenue fund of the federation shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of the courts established for the federation and the state under section 6 of this constitution”. That is where the need for good faith comes in; for, while it is impracticable to release all the money due to the judiciary at a go to the NJC, considering that the national income comes in bits, it is possible to make the releases as the income comes, without the executive seeking to exert undue influence.

    The act of bad faith, which the provisions of the 1999 constitution sought to cure, and now reiterated by this judgment, is the executive impudence, of using budgetary allocations to exert undue influence on the independence of the judiciary. We have no doubt, as we believe many Nigerians do, that we all desire a fearless and independent judiciary for the sake of our democracy. That is why we have consistently canvassed for a well funded judiciary, and have always condemned the penchant by the executive, and even the legislature, to whimsically cut down on the budgetary requirements of the judiciary.

    While hailing the judgment of the court as a good intervention against the tyranny of the executive against the judiciary, we doubt if it is a cure-all measure. This is because section 84(7) of the 1999 constitution, only provides that “the recurrent expenditure of judicial offices in the federation (in addition to salaries and allowances of the judicial officers mentioned in subsection 4 of this section) shall be a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund of the federation”. So what happens to the capital expenditure part of the budget? Will that also form part of the charge against the consolidated revenue fund of the federation?

    If it will not, can the executive not use that essential need to exert the feared undue influence on the judiciary? Again, that is why we believe that good faith on the part of relevant authorities, is the ultimate antidote to an endangered judiciary.