Towards Resolving the Osun Judiciary Imbroglio
The Osun State Judiciary has been engulfed in a crisis for the past few months, occasioned by the interminable strike of the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN). The efforts of the Governor of Osun State, Senator Ademola Adeleke, to resolve the crisis appears not to have yielded much fruit, in this already seemingly intricate situation. Justice administration in the State is at a standstill, and the crippling effect of this is that all Osun State courts are under lock and key, and many are languishing in detention without trial. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, Lazarus Chinwokwu and Adesegun Talabi, delve into the complexities of these issues, as they try to proffer solutions
Who Will Save Osun?
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
Introduction
Osun State is in a quandary at the moment, nearing a total paralysis of governance, if the anomaly is not arrested urgently. In law, there are three levels of governance in every State in Nigeria, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. All the three arms must work together. The Legislature enacted the law that created the offices of the three arms, specifying their respective duties and obligations. The executive formulates policies and programmes for the government and the people, while the Judiciary acts as a check upon the exercise of the powers of State. Upon his election, the President is sworn in by the Chief Justice of Nigeria and upon his assumption of office, the President in turn proclaims the Legislature. The President appoints the Chief Justice and for the latter to properly assume office, his appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate and thereafter, he has to be sworn in by the President. What this simply means is that the three organs of government work together even though they are independent.
The Indispensability of the Judiciary
By virtue of Section 6(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, “the judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the Courts to which this section relates, being Courts established for the Federation”. Section 6(2) established courts for the States. By virtue of Section 6(6)(b), “the judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any persons in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person”.
In simple terms, the only body empowered to determine and adjudicate upon disputes, are the courts created by law. To extend judicial powers to cover all persons, government or authority means that in the eye of the Constitution, no one is above the law. The reason for this is to avoid a breakdown of law and order in the society, such that persons who are aggrieved over the actions or policies of others will have the opportunity of ventilating their grievances in a manner that follows due process of law. Even from the days of our forefathers, society has never existed without a forum for the settlement of disputes. I have laboured to imagine how Governor Ademola Adeleke is currently governing Osun State without the Judiciary. The contemplation of the Constitution is that no State in Nigeria can, or should be governed effectively without the judicial arm in full operation. Even when the military took power through coup d’etat, the courts were left intact. Rarely, in the history of our nation, have we had to contend with a situation whereby the courts are locked up perpetually, aside from a few exceptions like Rivers State during the tenure of Governor Rotimi Amaechi.
Section 4(8) of the Constitution states thus:
“Save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall by subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law, and accordingly, the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any law, that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law.”
What the framers of the Constitution are saying is that, there shall be no dictatorship of any kind in governance. Laws made by the Legislature must always be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, so, too, the actions of the executive. This is not the case in Osun State presently, because of the strike action embarked upon by judicial workers over the tenure of office of the Chief Judge of Osun State. If anyone is arrested in Osun State, he stands to remain in custody, whether such arrest is lawful or not. In the same vein, if land is acquired compulsorily or taken over by force, the victim has no remedy but to accept his fate, since the law forbids any resort to self-help. The executive arm of government in Osun State is running riot, ruling without the judicial arm. No government should be allowed to function without the courts, as that will only encourage lawlessness and dictatorship. The House of Assembly of Osun State cannot also exist without the judicial arm of government, as laws being enacted must be subject to the interpretation of the courts. But, the issues arising from the closure of all courts in Osun State go deeper than this.
Presently, no judicial officer can be appointed in the State, and Magistrates cannot be promoted. I have also wondered how the Governor was able to present the 2024 budget estimate to the House of Assembly for approval, without the input of the Judiciary of Osun State, the Chief Judge being the Chief Executive of that indispensable arm of government. In other words, can a State in Nigeria purport to have an Appropriation Bill that does not reflect the estimates of the Judiciary? Only the Governor can provide an answer to this query, but I pray that the House of Assembly of Osun State did not enact an Appropriation Law that excluded the Judiciary. If the Judiciary in Osun State will not be allowed to function for whatever reason, then the other two arms of government have no justification to continue to remain in office for the exercise of illegal actions. By the Public Officers Protection Law of Osun State for instance, certain actions can only be challenged within three months of their occurrence, otherwise the cause of action becomes statute barred. The strike action embarked upon by judicial workers has lasted well over three months now, thereby rendering certain actions of the government beyond judicial inquiry. This is unacceptable.
The Constitution contains an absolute prohibition against ousting the jurisdiction and powers of the Court in its Section 4(8) that “save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of judicial tribunals established by law, and accordingly, the National Assembly or a House of Assembly shall not enact any law, that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or of a tribunal established by law”.
The true interpretation of this provision, is that it is illegal for there to be a Governor or Speaker of the House of Assembly in any State where there is no Judiciary or where the Judiciary is not allowed the exercise of its statutory functions of interrogating the actions, laws and policies of the other arms of government. I do not see how Governor Adeleke can continue to remain in office and govern Osun State effectively and legally, without the courts of law established for the State by the Constitution. It is an aberration that must not be allowed to fester, because what is left is anarchy and lawlessness.
I have been told by some of my colleagues and comrades that there are genuine petitions pending before the National Judicial Council, highlighting certain acts of misconduct against the Chief Judge of Osun State. That may be the case and indeed, it is desirable that the actions of the Chief Judge and the Judiciary be brought under scrutiny. But, should that alone be the justification why cases cannot be filed in court, or why suspects should remain in custody indefinitely and without trial? Can the supposed grievances against the Chief Judge shut down the entire Judiciary of a State, and the Governor is content to remain in office without check?
Conclusion
The options available to Osun State, are so very clear. The courts must be opened, for the discharge of their constitutional functions. In this regard, I humbly urge the Governor to dialogue with the Judiciary staff, in order to open the courts. It is a state of emergency, that warrants urgent actions from the State and those in charge of its affairs.
In the event of failure, inability or unwillingness by the Governor of Osun State to restore law and order in the State by opening the courts for the performance of their constitutional functions, Section 305(1) C-F of the Constitution permits the President to declare a state of emergency in any State of the Federation, where there is clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger. There cannot be public order or public safety in any part of the Federation such as Osun State where the entire Judiciary is shut down, and there are no lawful means to resolve grievances by the public. Let the Governor save Osun State. We cannot dance forever.
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
Navigating the Storm: Addressing Systemic Challenges in Nigeria’s Judiciary in View of JUSUN Strikes
Lazarus Chinwokwu
Background
Not only recently, but Nigeria’s Judiciary has faced longstanding challenges with industrial actions by court workers, and this is particularly pronounced by the Judiciary court workers strike in Osun State which, taken by itself and the persistence of the wider problems which provoke these disputes, show that the Judiciary is a long way off from addressing many of the underlying problems in the administration of justice. The suspension of JUSUN members in Osun State, along with unresolved grievances of Judiciary court workers nationwide, is taking a huge toll on the delivery of justice services, and, in Osun State, has significantly disrupted the conduct of judicial business, severely limiting access to the justice system for many. The response from the Osun State government has failed to adequately address crisis, reflecting a glaring lack of serious engagement, brinkmanship and effectiveness by the government.
These strikes serve as a stark reminder of broader structural deficiencies within the Nigerian Judiciary , encompassing the urgent need for the Judiciary’s financial autonomy, improved working conditions of its workforce, and the need for a healthy working relationship between court leadership and administration. It is exigent to address these issues heads-on, foster more robust dialogue while implement substantive reforms to restore public trust in the judiciary.
The Plight of JUSUN Members in Osun State: A Crisis of Access to Justice and its Far-reaching Implications
The strike action begun by the JUSUN in Osun State on November 22, 2023, under the leadership of Chairman, Oluwagbenga Eludire, underscores deep-rooted grievances within the Osun judicial system, revolving around allegations of maladministration and mistreatment, particularly targeting Chief Judge, Justice Oyebola Adepele Ojo. Accusations of persecution of staff and the withholding of entitlements fuelled discontent among judicial workers, culminating in protests and ultimately the strike. The events preceding the strike, including protests on November 20 and 21, 2023, highlighted the intensity of dissatisfaction and the perceived need for decisive action.
The aftermath of the strike, now over three months, has cast a worrisome shadow over access to justice in Osun State, in effect locking down judicial business in the State, and effectively, the operations of a branch of government in that State. With pending cases which would likely include time-sensitive proceedings, and those that involve human rights and liberty, the inability to access courts would have a staggering deprivative effect on many and represent effective denial of access to justice, further perpetuating systemic injustices to those who already suffer significant social, economic and legal disadvantages. Additionally, the strike’s impact will particularly hurt administratively detained and pre-trial detainees, who will be denied timely access to bail hearings, exacerbating issues of police-cell and prison congestion and prolonging their incarceration.
Government Response: Lacking in Substance
The response of the Osun State Government to the crisis within its Judiciary has been disappointing, to say the least. While some incremental progress is acknowledged, the Government’s efforts to fully engage with the underlying fissures and fundaments of the crisis lacks credibility.
In February, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, set up a Committee to resolve issues that sparked the JUSUN strike, but it was a belated intervention that would have been more meaningful if it had come sooner, given the peculiar context of the problems that triggered the strike. Insisting, simpliciter, as the Government earlier did, that the reinstatement of suspended workers falls solely within the purview of judicial bodies, the Government effectively shirked its broader governance responsibilities to ensure access to institutions of justice in the State. While it is correct that appointment and disciplinary matters involving judicial workers are constitutionally handled by a judicial body, the Government still bears overall responsibility to maintain the rule of law in the State.
Furthermore, the Government’s reluctance to address issues such as inadequate working conditions of JUSUN workers, non-payment of their allowances, and suspension of staff allegedly without due process, appears, if the curtains are lifted, to have less to do with respecting the institutional autonomy of the Judiciary, than it is of achieving the political objective of targeting the Chief Judge, ostracising her and leveraging on external assistance to build a case for her removal from office, an objective which the Government has pursued prior to the strikes.
Systemic Challenges and Struggle for Judicial Autonomy
The challenges faced by Osun State are not isolated, but emblematic of broader issues plaguing the Nigerian Judiciary. Similar protests and strikes by court workers across various States, underscore systemic deficiencies that necessitate comprehensive solutions. Recent industrial actions by court workers, such as the court closures in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in 2021 and the ongoing warning strike in Ogun State which started on 26th February 2024, serve as poignant reminders of the entrenched challenges within our justice system and their profound impact on court workers and litigants alike.
The quest for financial autonomy for the Judiciary stands out as a stamping ground for relentless advocacy and struggle. The shutdown of courts in the FCT in April 2021 and subsequent nationwide protests by JUSUN underscores the pressing need for the Judiciary’s financial independence, for, without that independence, it is impossible to safeguard the Judiciary’s role as an independent, effective and equal branch of government. It is the to the credit of Judiciary workers that they have steadfastly and unflinchingly championed these causes, perhaps much more than any other civic collective.
The ongoing strike by the Ogun State branch of JUSUN, underscores the persistent struggle for unpaid allowances owed to judicial workers by State governments. Despite attempts at resolution through dialogue, the lack of tangible progress has compelled judicial staff to exercise their legal right to strike. This action serves as a stark reminder to State authorities of the financial hardships faced by judicial workers, impeding their ability to discharge their duties effectively.
The Far-Reaching Consequences of JUSUN Strikes
Industrial action by JUSUN have always had far-reaching consequences, that extend beyond the immediate concerns of judicial workers. Firstly, these strikes disrupt the normal functioning of the Judiciary, leading to frustration caused to court users and the suffocation of court dockets. Court closures and reduced operational capacity hinder the timely resolution of disputes, exacerbate docket backlogs, as well as prolong the legal process and its costs for litigants. As a result, individuals seeking redress through the legal system face prolonged uncertainty and increased financial burdens, further eroding trust in the efficacy of the Judiciary.
Secondly, strikes have a significant impact on judicial staff themselves, who are often forced to endure financial hardships due to unpaid allowances and suspended salaries. These workers, who play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding the democratic process, also endure the emotional tolls and strains of prolonged strikes and financial insecurity which can have long-lasting effects on their well-being and morale, ultimately undermining the quality of services they deliver to courts and Judges.
Furthermore, strikes by JUSUN generally have broader implications for access to justice and democracy in Nigeria. Access to justice is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and any impediments to this right threaten the very foundation of democracy. When the Judiciary, as a key pillar of democratic governance, is paralysed by strikes and institutional challenges, the democratic process itself is undermined. Without a functioning Judiciary to uphold the rule of law and safeguard individual rights, the principles of democracy become hollow promises, devoid of meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
Moreover, the strikes by JUSUN highlight deeper systemic issues within Nigeria’s governance structures, particularly regarding the autonomy and independence of the Judiciary. The quest for financial autonomy, as advocated by JUSUN, speaks to a larger struggle for institutional relevance, integrity, independence and accountability. A Judiciary that is beholden to executive or legislature cannot fulfil its constitutional mandate impartially and effectively. Therefore, addressing the grievances of judicial workers and ensuring the autonomy of the Judiciary is not only essential for the efficient administration of justice, but also for the health of Nigeria’s democracy as a whole.
Call to Action: Addressing the Crisis and Charting a Path Forward
JUSUN strikes often thrust Nigeria’s Judiciary into turmoil, and, given the sensitive and pivotal role they play in the delivery of justice, their voice should be taken seriously by all stakeholders. It is incumbent upon the government, JUSUN, judicial authorities, and civil society to engage in constructive dialogue aimed at resolving the underlying grievances judicial workers have, and restoring stability to the judicial system all year round. Failure to address the root causes of the crisis risks further erosion of public trust in the Judiciary and undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law.
In charting a path forward, priority must be given to ensuring financial autonomy for the Judiciary. The Government must allocate adequate funding directly to the Judiciary’s budget, free from executive control, to guarantee the effective functioning of courts and timely payment of salaries and allowances. Moreover, efforts to enhance the independence of the Judiciary, safeguarding it from undue influence or interference, are paramount. This includes strengthening the role of judicial bodies in disciplinary matters and ensuring transparent and merit-based appointments within the Judiciary.
Improving working conditions for judicial staff is also essential. Investments in training opportunities, addressing salary disparities, and modernising court facilities are imperative to bolstering the morale and professionalism of judicial workers. Additionally, public awareness and advocacy efforts are crucial in mobilising support for judicial reform, and holding government officials accountable for upholding the rule of law. By collectively committing to these measures, Nigeria can build a Judiciary that is resilient, independent, and capable of dispensing justice impartially and efficiently, thereby safeguarding the rights of all citizens and strengthening the fabric of democracy in the country.
Lazarus Chinwokwu, Access to Justice
Between Osun Governor, CJ and JUSUN: Who Blinks First?
Adesegun Talabi
For months now, the Osun State branch of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) has sustained an industrial action. The strike, initially aimed at compelling the State Government to settle members’ outstanding allowances and drawing attention to the alleged high-handedness of the Chief Judge, Justice Adepele Ojo, was exacerbated when the protest organised by the Union’s members at the premises of the High Court in Osogbo was dispersed by Police operatives. But, this is just one side of the pickle in which the Judiciary in the State has found itself. The other is a fallout of the calamitous attempt by the State Governor to suspend the Chief Judge and appoint a replacement. Indeed, the Governor, in defiance of a subsisting order of the National Industrial Court, suspended the Chief Judge and appointed a replacement, but subsequently made an about-face when the suspension was denounced by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
The Governor’s attempt to substitute the beleaguered Chief Judge, raises questions about the existence and operation of separation of powers in Nigeria. In suspending the Chief Judge, the Governor ostensibly acted on the recommendation of the State House of Assembly, but undoubtedly found precedence in similar attempts by the executive to change the leadership of the Judiciary, chief among them being the suspension of the Chief Justice of the Federation by the previous President. The aforesaid recommendation of the House of Assembly flowed from its attempt to investigate the various allegations of infractions levelled against the Chief Judge, as contained in a petition brought to the House by JUSUN. The House, in the purported exercise of its powers under Sections 128(2)(b) and 129 of the 1999 Constitution, set up an investigative committee and thus, recommended the Chief Judge’s suspension to enable it properly probe the allegations.
To be clear, Section 292(1)(a) of the Constitution empowers the Governor of a State to remove the Chief Judge, upon receipt of an address supported by two-third majority of the House of Assembly praying that he be so removed for his inability to discharge his duties, misconduct or for contravention of the Code of Conduct. The courts have however, conveniently held at various times that such removal cannot be lawfully done, except with the input of the NJC. It is important to note that, the Constitution does not make any requirement for such input. The court’s view nevertheless, is that since, for example, the removal of a Chief Judge on the ground of inability to perform the functions of his office or appointment cannot be ascertained and confirmed by the Governor or the House of Assembly in the absence of any input from the NJC under which supervision the Chief Judge discharges his functions as judicial officer, and which body also is directly responsible for exercising disciplinary control over the said State Chief Judge, the NJC must be a participant in the removal process before same can be properly done.
In Elelu-Habeeb & Anor v AG Federation & Ors (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423 (a case that has become the locus classicus for the constitutional principle around the subject- matter of the power to remove any judicial officer), the Supreme Court found that, the Chief Judge of a State cannot be removed under any guise without recourse to the NJC. The facts of the case involved Hon. Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb, who was the Chief Judge of Kwara State. The Governor of the State forwarded a petition to the House of Assembly alleging acts of misconduct against the Chief Judge, who was then summarily relieved of her office by the State House of Assembly. In its determination of the issues, the Supreme Court found that the NJC is an executive body established for the good governance of the country under Section 153 of the Constitution. The court further observed that under paragraph 21 of part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, the NJC may recommend to the Governor of a State suitable candidates for appointment to the offices of the Chief Judge and for the removal from office of judicial officers. The court accordingly held that:
“…from these very clear provisions of the Constitution which are very far from being ambiguous, the Governors of the States and the Houses of Assembly of the States cannot exercise disciplinary control touching the removal of Chief Judges of States or other Judicial Officers in the States”.
It is the writer’s view that the Supreme Court has taken this position, to prevent the rampant removal of out-of-favour Chief Judges by their Governors. Such an occurrence would be a travesty of the principle of separation of powers, on which our Constitution is founded. An effective Judiciary must be immune from any threat of suspension or removal by the legislature or the executive. Commenting on the importance of an independent Judiciary, the court in Sahara Reporters and Anor v Saraki (2018) LPELR-49738 (CA) stated:
“I have deemed it expedient to reiterate the fundamental axiom, that an independent and courageous Judiciary is the greatest asset of a free people anywhere in the world. This is absolutely so, because by the very nature of the fundamental functions and role, thereof, the Judiciary is the citizens’ last line of defence and hope in a free democratic society. Indeed, that is the line separating constitutionalism from totalitarianism”.
Since the failed suspension attempt, the Osun State Governor has made more judicious efforts to address the grievances of members of the State’s branch of JUSUN, but a resolution remains out of reach.
Adesegun Talabi, Principal Partner, A.K. Talabi & Co., Lagos
