…..Lawyer, Femi Emodamori hails judgment as Watershed, victory for Judiciary, ends to Executive subjugation.
The Ondo State High Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Ademola Enikuomehin, has nullified several sections of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021, for violating Section 121 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which guarantees financial autonomy for the State Judiciary.
In the landmark judgment delivered today (2nd July, 2024) in Suit HOW/12/2024: FEMI EMMANUEL EMODAMORI VS. THE GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE & ORS, the Court also held that the Claimant, Femi Emmanuel Emodamori, and indeed every Nigerian who alleges a breach of the Constitution and establishes sufficient interest in a matter, has the locus standi or legal right to approach the Court for redress.
The Judge relied on several recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on locus standi in constitutional matters, to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Defendants in the case.
The Suit was instituted through an Originating Summons in March, 2024 the Claimant (a Lawyer), in person, against the Governor of Ondo State (Lucky Aiyedatiwa), The Attorney-General of Ondo State (Kayode Ajulo, SAN) and the State House of Assembly, listed as the 1st to 3rd Defendants respectively. After a thorough review of the arguments of the parties, the Court granted the reliefs sought by the Claimant as follows:
- A DECLARATION that Sections 3 (1), (2) (a) –(l), 4, 5, 6 (3), 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 14(4) & (5) of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management
(Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021 enacted by the Defendants are null,
void and of no effect whatsoever, for being inconsistent with Section
121(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
(as amended) guaranteeing financial autonomy for the State
Judiciary, to the extent that those Sections of that Law create and
dictate the compositions of committee(s) to manage the State
Judiciary funds, the contract approval mandate(s) or limits for the
committee(s) and Heads of Courts, and compulsory supervision of
all Ondo State Judiciary new building and major building renovation
contracts by some departments or public servants under the 1st and
3rd Defendants, who must be paid supervisory/professional fees
from the budgeted vote of the Judiciary. - A DECLARATION that the Defendants lack the power to abridge,
expand or in any way alter
the specific powers and/or
responsibilities conferred on the Ondo State Judicial Service
Commission by a community reading of Section 197 (1) (c) and (2),
Part II of the Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and other section(s) thereof, by enacting Sections 3 (l), 4, 5, 8 (c) and 11 of the Ondo State
Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021
conferring powers or responsibilities on the Commission to participate in or superintend the award of contracts by or on behalf of the State Judiciary. - A DECLARATION that the additional powers and/or responsibilities
conferred on the Ondo State Judicial Service Commission by the
Defendants in Sections 3 (l), 4, 5, 8 (c) and 11 of the Ondo State
Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021 to
participate in or superintend the award of contracts by or on behalf
of the State Judiciary, are ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, null
and void. - AN ORDER nullifying Sections 3 (1), (2) (a) – (l), 4, 5, 6 (3), 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 14(4) & (5) of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management
(Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021.”
Whilst speaking with newsmen after the Judgment, the Claimant and an Akure Based Lawyer, Femi Emmanuel
Emodamori said: “the Judgment represents a watershed in our collective quest for a truly independent State Judiciary that is free from the financial strangulation and suffocation of the executive and legislative arms of Government as envisaged in Section 17 (2) (e) of the Constitution.”
The lawyer further explained that “The judgment simply means that the State
Judiciary must be allowed to determine how to manage both its capital and recurrent expenditures like the other arms of Government, rather than being superintended and subjugated by the executive through a Fund Management Committee which largely comprised of the appointees of the Governor, including all members of the State Judicial Service Commission, whose constitutional responsibilities are strictly limited to the appointment, discipline and promotion of certain categories of judicial officers, and have no business awarding or superintending contracts on behalf of the State Judiciary as wrongly provided for under the provisions of the Law that have now been nullified.”
