Connect with us

JUDICIARY

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in the Funding of Courts Suit by 36 States

Published

on

Share

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in the suit filed by the Attorneys General of the 36 states querying the legality of the Presidential Executive Order 10, 2020.

President Buhari had in the Executive Order he signed on May 22, 2020, made it mandatory for all states to include allocations of both the legislature and the judiciary in their Appropriation Laws.

This he said was in compliance with Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended).

A seven-man panel of justices of the apex court led by Justice Musa Datijo, reserved their judgment  after listening to arguments canvassed by all the parties.

The states through their attorneys-general in a suit marked SC/655/2020, where the Attorney -General of the Federation was listed as the sole respondent, posed two questions for the Supreme Court to determine.

“Whether having regards to the provisions of Section 6 and 81(3) of the Constitution read together with item 121(3) of the third schedule, the defendant is not constitutionally obligated and or charged with the responsibility for funding all capital and recurrent expenditure of the High Courts, Sharia Courts of Appeal and Customary Courts of Appeal at the states of the Federation being courts created under Section 6 of the constitution.

“Whether considering provisions of Section 6, 80, 81, 120 and 121 whether the Presidential Executive order number 10 of 2020 made by the president on May 22, 2020 to compel the plaintiffs to fund State High Courts, States Sharia Courts of Appeal and Customary Courts of Appeal in violation of the Constitutional provisions vesting responsibility for funding the said courts on the federal government is not unconstitutional and unlawful.”

At the resumed hearing on Monday, while adopting their processes, counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr Augustine Alegeh, SAN, argued that salaries, emoluments, remuneration and allowances of judges, were not supposed to be in any appropriation bill.

Alegeh submitted that under Section 84(4) of the 1999 Constitution, (as amended), funds for such expenditure, were charged and captured in the consolidated revenue fund, not in the budget.

“Our position is that funds meant for the judiciary should be taken from the consolidated revenue fund and handed to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for disbursement to heads of courts as stipulated in Section 6 of the Constitution.

“We have to admit to ourselves that what we are practicing in this country is constitutional democracy and not true federalism”, Alegeh said.

He told the court that his clients had so far, spent about N66 billion in the maintainance of state courts, and he demanded for a refund of the money.

For his part, counsel to the AGF, Mr Tijjani Gazali, SAN, the Acting Director, Civil Appeals, Federal Ministry of Justice, told the court that he filed a preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit in vehement opposition to the suit.

He said the Executive Order 10 was based on a judgement of the Federal High Court that ordered financial autonomy for the judiciary at the state level.

Gazali contended that the said judgement followed a suit that was filed by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria, (JUSUN), in which the NJC, the AGF and the AG of all the 36 states, were listed as respondents.

“My Lords, up to this moment, there is no appeal against that judgement, which they are now contending is different from this suit”, Gazali said.

He added that the plaintiffs suit was a gross abuse of the court process and urged the court to dismiss the suit with reasonable cost.

Alegeh, however, prayed the court to discountenance the argument by the AGF, stressing that JUSUN as a body, lacked the locus-standi to file a suit in any dispute between the state and the federal government.

Meanwhile, five Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, Adegboyega Awomolo, Olisa Agbakoba, Sebastian Hon, Mahmud Magaji and Musibau Adetunbi, announced appearances as amicus curiae (friends of the court).

The Supreme Court invited them to offer their legal opinion on the matter.

In his submission, Awomolo, relied on Sections 81(3), 84(4) and (7), as well as Paragraph 21(e) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, to argue that the Presidential Executive Order 10, 2020, was unconstitutional.

He said the order could be likened to the one former President Olusegun Obasanjo issued in 2004, which barred Lagos State from benefiting from the federation account.

The senior lawyer maintained that the federal government was constitutionally mandated to take care of both capital and recurrent expenditure of all the courts established for the federation, both states and federal courts.

For his part, Agbakoba, maintained that both the federal government and all the 36 states had in the past 20 years, violated provisions of the Constitution.

Though he urged the Supreme Court to uphold the suit by states, he, however, kicked against their request for a refund of about N66billion.

Agbakoba, urged the apex court to restore Section 162(9) of the Constitution which he said the court wrongly struck down in a suit involving the attorney-general of Abia and the AGF.

“I urge my lords to use this case to break the shackles of the judiciary, I believe that this is an opportunity for the judiciary to finally set itself free,” he said.

Hon, for his part, threw his weight behind the suit by the 36 states and urged the apex court to nullify the Presidential Executive Order 10, 2020.

Magaji said he disagreed with the submission of plaintiffs that the federal government should take care of capital expenditures incurred in funding of state courts.

He argued that no where in the Constitution was it expressly stated that such expenditure should rest on the federal government’s shoulder.

“I am therefore urging my lords to resist the temptation of imputing into the constitution, what is not there,” he said.

Adetunbi, argued that while Section 84(7) of the Constitution, mandated the federal government to pay salaries and emoluments of state courts, under Section 121 (3), the plaintiffs were required to take care of capital expenditure of the courts.

The matter has been adjourned to a date to be communicated to the parties.

The states through their attorneys-general argued that the president, by virtue of the said Executive Order, pushed the federal government’s responsibility of funding both the capital and recurrent expenditures of the state high courts, Sharia Court of Appeal, and the Customary Court of Appeal, to the state governments.

They maintained that the order was a clear violation of Sections 6 and 8(3) of 1999 Constitution, placed the responsibility of funding the listed courts on the federal government.

The 36 states contended that they had been funding capital projects in the listed courts since 2009 and prayed the Supreme Court to order the federal government to make a refund to them.

They argued in their statement of claim that since 2009, the the federal government had not funded the capital and recurrent expenditures of the state high courts, Sharia Court of Appeal and the Customary Court of Appeal of their states.

According to them the federal government has only paid the salaries of the judicial officers of the listed courts.

They posited that Section 81(3) of the 1999 Constitution, made provision for the federal government to fund the courts.

“That item 21(e) of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides that the National Judicial Council (NJC) is to collect from the defendant and disburse all capital and recurrent expenditure in respect of all the courts established under Section 6 of the same constitution.

“That section 12(3) of the constitution makes provision for all capital and recurrent expenditures for court not established under Section 6 of the constitution by the respective plaintiff’s states,” they said.

The plaintiff prayed the Supreme Court to quash the Executive Order 10 as well as make an order compelling the federal government to henceforth, fund both capital and recurrent expenditures of the courts. (NAN)

JUDICIARY

Court Remands Landlord for Alleged Defilement of Tenant’s Daughter

Published

on

Federal High Courts
Share

A family court sitting at Iyaganku, Ibadan, on Tuesday ordered the remand of one Musibau Lamidi, 50, for alleged defilement of his tenant’s six-year-old daughter.

The Magistrate, Mrs S. A . Adesina, ordered that the landlord should be kept at the Agodi custodial facility pending advice from Oyo State  Director of Public Prosecutions.

Adesina did not take the landlord’s plea.

She adjourned the case until April 25 for mention.

Reports says that Musibau, a resident of Olode, Ibadan, was charged on one-count of defilement.

Earlier, the prosecutor, Insp Gbemisola Adedeji, told the court that the defendant, on March 13, between 8. 00 a.

m. and 4.00 p.m.  defiled his tenant’s daughter.

Adedeji said that Musibau had an issue with the child’s mother and asked her to pack out.

The prosecutor said that when the woman went to look for a house to rent, the defendant defiled  her daughter.

She said that the offence contravened Section 34 of the Oyo State Child Right’s
Law of 2006. (NAN)

Continue Reading

JUDICIARY

4 Friends Docked for Allegedly Threatening Cleric’s Life

Published

on

Court Sentences Applicant to 6 Months in Prison for Stealing Cell Phone
Share

Four friends were on Monday docked in a Grade ‘A’ Customary Court in  Ibadan for allegedly threatening the life of  pastor Charles Gold.

The police charged Olatunji Musibau, 44;Abiodun Folarin, 50; Kazeem Oluremi, 60 and Yusuf Sodiq, 23, with conspiracy and conduct likely to cause breach of peace.

The Prosecution Counsel, Mr Philip Amusan, told the court that the defendants allegedly committed the offence on March 8, at about 2 p.

m., at New Bodija Area in Ibadan.

Amusan alleged that the defendants and others at large, threatened violence against pastor Gold, of Echo Evangelical Ministry Ibadan.

He said the offence contravened the probisions of sections 516 and 383 of the Criminal Laws of Oyo State, 2000.

The defendants however pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The Court President, Mrs Moji Aworemi, admitted the defendants to bail in the sum of N150, 000 each and one surety each in like sum.

Aworemi held that the surety must be a blood relation to the defendants.

She adjourned the case until April 29, for mention. (NAN)

Continue Reading

JUDICIARY

2 Teenagers in Court for Allegedly Stealing Sewing Machine

Published

on

Share

Two teenagers, Simor Aaron, 19, and Francis David, 18, were arraigned on Wednesday before a Kaduna Chief Magistrates’ Court for allegedly stealing a sewing machine and other items worth N325,000.

The defendants, both residents of High-Cost Narayi, Kaduna, are standing trial on a two-count charge of conspiracy and stealing, to which they pleaded not guilty.

The Prosecutor, Insp Chidi Leo, told the court that the defendants committed the offences on March 11, at Barnawa Kaduna.

According to Leo, the duo burgled a tailoring shop of one Gladys Peter and stole her sewing machine, six wrappers, and four clothing materials all valued at N325,000.

The prosecutor stated that the defendants were caught and handed over to the police by members of the vigilante group on patrol in the area.

Leo said that the offences contravened Sections 281 and 217 of the Penal Code of Kaduna State, 2017, which stipulates a three-year jail term for stealing and two years imprisonment for conspiracy.

The Magistrate, Ibrahim Emmanuel, granted the defendants bail in the sum of N100,000 each with two sureties each in like sum, who must be gainfully employed.

Emmanuel adjourned the case until April 22, for hearing. (NAN)

Continue Reading

Read Our ePaper

Top Stories

NEWS10 hours ago

FCT HOS: Why President Tinubu Extends Atang’s Tenure By 6 Months

ShareBy Laide Akinboade, AbujaPresident Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has approved the extension of Atang Udo Samuel, as the the Head of...

NEWS10 hours ago

FGGC Benin Emerges Winner of 2023 National Senior Secondary Schools’ Debate

ShareBy Tony Obiechina, AbujaThe Federal Government Girls College, Benin has emerged overall winner of the 2023 National Senior Secondary Schools’...

NEWS11 hours ago

We’re Meeting Our Targets on Airport -Kuje Road Construction – Wike

ShareBy Laide Akinboade, AbujaThe Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike, haom Wednesday,  expressed satisfaction with the...

NEWS11 hours ago

Osun to Partner FG on Culture, Tourism Development

ShareFrom Kunle IdowuGovernor Ademola Adeleke has secured a partnership deal with the Ministry of Tourism on the development of tourism...

POLITICS11 hours ago

I Didn’t Call for Ganduje’s Resignation – Alia

ShareFrom Attah Ede, MakurdiGovernor Hyacinth Alia of Benue has denied calling for the resignation of Alhaji Abdullahi Ganduje, the All...

POLITICS11 hours ago

Mutfwang Meets PDP North Central Leadership Calls for Unity among Officials

ShareFrom Jude Dangwam, JosThe Executive Governor of Plateau State, Barrister Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang has called for unity a purpose among...

POLITICS11 hours ago

FG Seeks Swedish Govt Support on Technical Education

ShareBy Tony Obiechina, Abuja The Federal Government is seeking the support of the Swedish Government to help drive its ongoing...

Metro11 hours ago

FG Declares March 29, April 1, Public Holiday to Mark Easter Celebration

ShareThe Federal Government has declared Friday, March 29, and Monday, April 1, as public holidays to mark the Easter celebration.This...

NEWS11 hours ago

Nigeria Prepared to Expedite Sustainable Dev’t in Collaboration with Partners — Tinubu

SharePresident Bola Tinubu yesterday said his administration is committed to deepening democracy by ensuring adherence to the rule of law...

NEWS11 hours ago

Police Engage Bandits in Gun Battle, Kill two, Arrest One in Benue

ShareFrom Attah Ede, Makurdi Men of the Benue State Police Command yesterday engaged bandits in gun duel in Mba-Mtsar village,...

Copyright © 2021 Daily Asset Limited | Powered by ObajeSoft Inc