Judiciary Workers Suspend Three Weeks Strike

The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) has suspended its three-week-old strike in federal courts.

The suspensions was the result of a meeting held at the Supreme Court yesterday at the instance of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ahmed Gambo.

Details of the decision to suspend the strike remained sketchy.

However, a source, said the strike had been suspended only for federal courts.

The implication is that states’ courts will remain shut.

The affected courts are the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the National Industrial Court.

These courts are expected to reopen for business today.

For three weeks, the workers effectively closed down  all the courts nationwide following the refusal of the executive to comply with a judgment of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which ordered the executive to hands off funds meant for the judiciary.

  JUSUN’s President, Marwa Adamu, said the workers decided to go on an indefinite strike because the executive did not comply with the agreement reached with the union to comply with the judgment of the court on judiciary funding.
While sympathising  with litigants, he said the workers had no choice but to go on strike to compel implementation of a subsisting court order and the agreement reached with them.

The strike denied politicians dissatisfied with their parties primaries to have their grievances heard in court.

The court had restrained the federal government and the 36 states of the federation from holding on to funds budgeted for the judiciary.

Justice Adeniyi Ademola, while delivering judgment in a suit filed by  JUSUN, held that the workers had the locus to ask both the federal and the states governments to comply with the provisions of the constitution on the funding of the judiciary.

He ordered that funds meant for the judiciary should be released directly to the heads of courts and not to the executive arm of government.

Justice Ademola described the disbursement of funds for the judiciary by the executive as unconstitutional and a threat to the independence of the judiciary.

Relying on the provisions of sections 83(1), 212(3) and 162(9) of the constitution, Justice Ademola said the provisions were clear and straightforward and should, therefore, be complied with.

He said: “The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the states should act responsibly and promptly to avoid constitutional crisis in this country   by ensuring financial autonomy for the judiciary.”

According to him, the end has come for the judiciary to be begging the executive for funds.

He held that the piecemeal allocation of funds to the judiciary at the pleasure of the federal and states  governments was unconstitutional, un-procedural, cumbersome, null, void, and should be abated forthwith.

The association had listed the National Judicial Council (NJC), the federal government and the 36 states as defendants in the suit.

The union had said  it was  dissatisfied with the way and manner the Federation Account/Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federal and states were being handled, adding that its members’ welfare had suffered as a result of the practice.

The judge agreed with them and declared  that the defendants’ failure to pay the funds standing to the credit of the states’ judiciary directly to the heads of courts in the various states’ judiciary was a constitutional breach and must stop.

Justice Ademola also compelled the defendants to comply with the provisions of sections 81(3), 212(3) and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution in the disbursement of funds to the heads of courts forthwith.

He issued an  order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from committing any further breach of the aforesaid constitutional  provisions.

The judge noted that both the National Assembly and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) enjoyed independence of funding and that the same should apply to the judiciary in accordance with the constitution.