One of the grounds on which Supreme Court judges “mutinied” in June 2022, leading to the forced exit of Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed as Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, was inadequate housing for judicial officers. They complained that many of them lived in rented apartments which rendered them vulnerable.

On the face of it, the move by the Bola Tinubu administration to build 40 units of houses for judicial officers in Abuja is a step towards addressing the issue. In September 2024, the Federal Executive Council approved the project which was handed over to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, to implement in the Katamkpe District.

However, Wike’s involvement is criticised as an “inducement” of the Judiciary. Rights activist, Femi Falana, in a television interview, said it is unconstitutional for the Executive to build houses for judges, more so as it is contrary to the concept of judicial autonomy. While authorising the project, President Tinubu had also claimed that provision of adequate housing would “promote judicial autonomy”.

It is beyond argument that adequate housing will foster productivity and independence of judicial officers. The real question is: who should implement it to ensure autonomy of the judiciary?

The Executive Arm of Government believes it has the constitutional preserve to budget, award contracts and implement projects for all branches of government, including the Legislative and Judicial Arms.

However, the concept of autonomy or independence demands that the Judiciary in particular should be able to budget, award contracts for its own projects and implement them to prevent the need to depend on the good graces of outsiders.

As Falana pointed out, the Constitution has been amended to vest all funds due to the Judicial Arm on the National Judicial Council, NJC. This is the governing body of the Judiciary. It should be allowed to assess all the needs of the Judiciary (including housing), present its budget to the National Assembly and be directly allocated its funds to carry out its programmes.

A situation where the Executive continues to pick and choose what the Judiciary should get, when and how it gets it, is totally contrary to judicial autonomy. It still amounts to paying the piper and calling the tune. Wike is a frequenter of courthouses for political favours. He should not be building houses for judges.

This is more so now that the Judiciary has become, to the discomfiture of our democracy, a “big player” in our elections. Most electoral contests are now decided by the judiciary. The Judiciary has become almost as important a “referee” as the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. Allowing the Executive to dish out favours to judicial officers is akin to the players in a game providing welfare for the referee.

That is not acceptable. (Vanguard Editorial)