The single sharpest fact in one or two punchy sentences. Who did what, where, when, and why it matters. The Nigerian judiciary is in a state of crisis, with many lawyers and citizens claiming that a certain judge 'belongs to' a particular politician. This is a serious indictment on the judiciary, and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Matilda Ikediobi Magaji Mato, is speaking out about the constitutional implications.
Matilda Ikediobi Magaji Mato is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN. In this interview, Mato examined the constitutional, ethical, and institutional dimensions of judicial independence. Should the executive be responsible for welfare packages? At what point does the provision of welfare packages for judges translate into compromise?
We run a system of separation of powers. We have three arms of government, and constitutionally, these three arms exist, though they work together, but they exist independently of the other. When you have the executive, you have the judiciary, and you have the National Assembly. These are institutions that are independent of one another. Like it has always been said, the funding of the judiciary should be independent.
They have a system where it will go through the appropriation, where it will go through the National Assembly.
And no matter how you try to put it or how you try to embellish it, the point remains that we are all human beings, judges are human beings like us. Any gift that comes through to the hands of a judge will definitely have a way of influencing his thinking, and definitely, by way of extension, his judgement over the person that offers such a gift. So it's not something that should be tolerated, it's not something that should be discussed in the system as it is.
If the right thing is to be done, there will be no point for the executive building houses for judges because the judiciary is an independent arm of government. The judiciary is supposed to have its independent funding. And if there is need for accommodations for all the judges, it should be looked upon by the Chief Justice of the Federation, who is the head of all courts in Nigeria. And they should have their independent means of procurement. They should be able to have their money independently and build houses for judges.
If you look at the houses that were alleged to have been built or they have been built, it's no longer an allegation because they have been commissioned. There are 40 houses. And I was just looking at it, even in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, alone, we have over 66 judges. In the Federal High Court, we have over close to 100 judges. Who and who out of the judges or the justices will be given these houses?
And what is the motive behind building 40 houses when you have over a thousand judges and justices in Nigeria? If the whole idea is not motivated by any factor, then definitely it should be every single judge in Nigeria that should be taken care of. Then we will know that obviously this one is not meant to pay back certain people.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, has tried to defend the issue, saying that the houses were not personal houses, they were meant to just assist the judges to do their work effectively. But Mato says it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the FCT minister building houses to donate to judges, shouldn't be. It is not acceptable.
And it was the late Niki Tobi that said, though the politicians are brothers to judges and justices, he said, but the relationship is not like the water of River Niger and River Benue, they will never meet, and it ought not to be. And he forbade the idea of judges and politicians coming together to wine and dine on the same table. Even as a judge, if such a thing is offered to you, you know very well that that thing has a negative influence, even on your own person, not to talk of influencing judgement against the individual that must have promoted your living condition, and then probably some are selected to be given the houses while others are still managing theirs. This is selective justice.
This is also not in tandem with what the drafters of the constitution envisaged right from the word go. And I think it's not something that should be tolerated, it's not something that should be discussed in the system as it is.