Will the 2016 budgetary allocation to the judiciary be enough to do justice?

Delivering expeditious and balanced justice as a social good is expensive and that is why democratic states globally allocate a critical fraction of their annual budgets for servicing and maintaining their court systems. While the level of funding that a country allocates to its court is a political decision and it is largely contextual on its unique circumstances, it however must not upset the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. Adequacy and quantum of funding available to the judiciary in a state is a marker of its ideological orientation as well as its institutional priorities.

Furthermore, there is a link between, on one hand, the funding available to courts and efficiency in the administration of courts and on the other, constitutional right to fair hearing, the speed at which cases are dispensed and the quality of the rule of law in any state.  Globally, there is an increasing recognition among policymakers as to the centrality of the concept of the rule of law to economic development and political cohesion, especially in the context of achieving Sustainable Development Goals. And that is why states in appropriating for the judiciary in their budgets strategically countenance the role of judiciary in the process of national wealth creation.

It is from this perspective that the budgetary allocation to the Judiciary in the 2016 federal budget is examined. What policy rationale informed the APC led government’s allocation of approximately 1.15% of the N6.06 trillion budgets to the judiciary? Is it about the meanness of the percentage or its sheer insufficiency? After-all some will quip that the American federal judiciary was appropriated 0.2% of the total budget authority in the financial year 2016. Also reference can be made to Section 81 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that, “any amount standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the National Judicial Council for disbursement to the heads of the courts established for the Federation and the states under section 6 of the Constitution”. Or is it the fact that the judiciary financial proposal of N143bn was slashed by more than 50% by National Assembly to N70billion? Or is it an overt attempt at weakening the judiciary by starving it of funds or force the organ to play ball in Nigeria’s venal political space?

One of the ways to measure the adequacy of the allocation is to proxy the leading political party’s manifesto and vital policy declarations of its key figures against what was allocated to the judiciary in their first appropriation.  The APC in its political manifesto promised that if elected to “strengthen the justice System for efficient administration and dispensation of justice along with the creation of special courts”.  President Muhammadu Buhari at a town hall meeting with Nigerians in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia early this year said that that the judiciary remained his main headache in the fight against corruption and promised that “with the support of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, he would continue to do his best to improve the nation’s judicial administration system”. But how come that the same political party that promised to prioritize judicial efficiency gave the judiciary the lowest budgetary allocation in 5years, considering that the Jonathan administration allocated 1.7%, 1.3%, 1.3% and 1.6% in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 respectively compared to 1.1% allocated in 2016? Aren’t actions are better test of intentions than words?

Comparing judiciary’s financial proposal to the government with the sum that was finally appropriated and itemize what articles in the proposal was reduced by the legislature and their implications on the delivery of justice in Nigeria can be another way to evaluate the budget’s sufficiency. N56.6B was proposed as the federal judiciary’s recurrent expenditure but N40.9B was appropriated; N71.6B was proposed as the capital expenditure but drastically slashed to N15.8B; N1.5bn proposed for pension as was approved in 2015 but it was slashed to N1.4bn; in-fact the legislature declined to be gracious to former Chief Justices of Nigeria as the proposed N1.5bn for the entitlements of former CJs was reduced to N1bn, other subheads too were reduced. Based on these reductions and the purposes advanced for them, it will not be an untoward leap to conclude that in 2016 the judiciary will struggle with paying salaries and pensions of judicial officials and court staffs, court buildings and equipments will be poorly maintained and bad ones will be not replaced, papers and processes will have to be rationed. Ultimately, the judiciary as an institution and as social service provider will be under immense pressure and its functional independence will be thoroughly threatened. Unfortunately, it is justice and the Nigerian people will be the ultimate looser.

A comparative look at budgets of the legislature and the judiciary, their operational sizes, institutional mandates and national expectations can be another way to put in context the issue of the judicial budget. The 469-member National Assembly appropriated N115 billion for itself, of which more than 90% is meant for recurrent expenditure, while the judiciary with 1,074 judges of superior courts have to manage a pantry N70billion of which N40.9billion is recurrent expenses. Equating the two branches of government is redundant as they both are sine qua non for democratic governance, but if we value the quality of our legislative process to the point that we fund the National Assembly better than most legislatures in the world, then can it be said that we disdain our courts and justice going by how little we give them?  The answer is the air as they say.

Nothing impels a more special budgetary consideration for the judiciary than the not too flattering share of conversation about the performance of the judiciary, the length of time it takes to dispose off a case, allegations of corruption and the unanimously agreed need for a whole-scale reform of the system. Lest we forget the performance of institutions and agencies of governance across the world that we routinely make reference to are not accidental accomplishments, they are products of strategic design and apposite allocation of resources. Justice is a critical public good, what you get out of it is what you invest.

Tosin Osasona