ARISE News analyst, Dr Sam Amadi, has warned that improving the welfare of judges must not be done in a manner that undermines judicial independence or fuels public suspicion that the judiciary has been captured by political interests ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE News on Wednesday while reacting to concerns over the construction of houses for judges by the Federal Capital Territory Administration, Amadi said providing welfare for judicial officers was not wrong, but stressed that the process and optics surrounding such gestures mattered in a constitutional democracy.
“I think it’s actually not a crime to provide for the welfare of judges, as well as of other public officials, because judges are public officials of a special kind,” he said.
“In fact, it’s in promotion of development, justice and stability to provide for the welfare of public officials.
“But there are processes for that provision. And again, it has to be done in a manner that aligns with the three key components of constitutional governance: the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the protection of fundamental rights.
“Those are the three pillars of constitutional democracy, especially our own constitutional democracy, as the Nigerian Supreme Court has said clearly.”
Amadi noted that constitutional provisions already guarantee financial autonomy for the judiciary through first-line charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
“The issue around its welfare, its financing, has been taken care of by Sections 80(3), 84(7) and 162(9), which is basically the idea of what we call first-line charge for its recurrent expenditure,” he said.
“The idea of fiscal independence is to allow them not to be caught in the ping pong of the administrative state.”
He, however, argued that the manner in which the judges’ housing project was executed created damaging perceptions.
“What I found wrong about building houses for judges in the manner it’s done is that, first, the judiciary, judges are not really one of the most deprived sectors of the Nigerian public service.
“Welfare of judges should not mean judges being treated like royalty in a manner also that leads to external capture.
“So this is a balance. Judges must be treated as fit people who earn their work, but who are not being made into royalty in a manner that suggests that they are now being captured.”
According to him, judges should ordinarily be empowered through adequate remuneration to provide for themselves rather than receiving benefits that may be perceived as political patronage.
“Most of the Court of Appeal judges and High Court judges have their houses. And they should build their own houses.
“The houses are what civil servants and public servants build from their earnings. So we should pay judges well, so that they build their own houses, so that they are also free agents; they’re not being controlled and managed.”
He further criticised the timing of the project, saying it risked eroding public confidence in the judiciary ahead of the next electoral cycle.
“The optics is bad. It creates the impression that this is a gift, a gracious gift to the judiciary,” he said.
“Look, run-up to elections, you are giving judges things that suggest to the opposition that judges are captured.
“And then they’re not going to go through the procedure. They will reject the arbitration of the institutions of the state and resort to self-help.
“It’s a national security crisis. It’s a democracy crisis.”
Amadi also took issue with comments credited to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, during the commissioning of the project.
“I see a resolve, a recklessness, especially with the FCT minister, in terms of what the judges are doing, to not care about institutional integrity,” he said.
He warned that weakening institutional safeguards would undermine the ability of judges to deliver impartial judgments.
“Judges can be independent based on the behaviour of the individual. But there is an institutional independence that creates opportunity for the heroism and courage of individual judges.
“When you so much reduce that space for institutional independence, you are weakening the capacity of these judges to render fair decisions.
“And you are strengthening public distrust of the judicial system and increasing resort to self-help and anarchy.”
Amadi said the challenges facing the judiciary went beyond housing and welfare, extending to what he described as a growing culture of institutional capture.
“The key point here is that African leaders always try to capture institutions.
“The judiciary has come under significant state capture, in my view, in Nigeria.
“For example, the appointing process. If you look at those who go to the bench, several are family members of politicians.
“There is an increasing capture of the judicial institution.”
He also accused members of the judiciary of failing to resist undue political influence.
“And the judges themselves seem to delight in dependence and not independence.
“They’re not fighting back to say, ‘We want to be independent.’
“They are enjoying the benefits of commingling and socialising with political office holders because it gives them opportunity.”
Amadi alleged that concerns over integrity within the system had become widespread.
“There have been clear allegations, credible in some cases, of some of these judges becoming part of contractors through proxies,” he said.
“I think that the biggest challenge for this democracy is that the institution is being captured.”
Calling for reforms, he urged legal practitioners, academics, the media and the public to speak out against practices capable of eroding judicial credibility.
“First, public discourse should change from trying to sanitise this problem.
“We should start calling it out and say this is not the way of the past; this is not the way of the judiciary of the 1980s.”
Recalling an era when the judiciary vigorously defended its reputation, Amadi said: “The debate then was simple: accountability.
“Today, judges don’t even care that they’re being called out.
“Commentators, law professors, senior lawyers are enabling this capture. And everybody’s enjoying it.”
He maintained that his criticism was not an indictment of all judicial officers, many of whom he described as committed professionals working under difficult conditions.
“My point is not that judges are such guys that if I give them a house, they give you judgment.
“Judges are trying. There are many brilliant, committed judges.
“But the working environment is choking, and over time we’re going to incentivise this other side of judicial craft.”
He added: “Judges are good guys. Some of them are doing a great job, but decisions have been captured or seem to be captured.”
Amadi concluded that preserving judicial independence required strengthening the structures that protect judges from political pressure.
“You have to create a structural independence that enables these individual acts of heroism to be sustainable.
“You cannot choke out heroism.
“You can’t incentivise some degree of dependence and bootlicking and kissing up to political authority.
“The whole structural arrangement is to ensure that judges feel comfortable and confident that their sometimes very annoying decisions against government or institutions do not earn them discredit.
“They are secured that their prospects to advance are based on their competence and experience.
“So these things are the things that are choking out this individual heroism. And that’s my point.”
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
