End the judicial workers’ strike

The court, in its ruling, had found for the union and directed the Accountant General of the Federation to deduct all budgetary allocations due the judiciary arm of the states and remit to the account of the National Judicial Council (NJC) for subsequent disbursement to the various heads of courts. The Constitution states that the […]

The court, in its ruling, had found for the union and directed the Accountant General of the Federation to deduct all budgetary allocations due the judiciary arm of the states and remit to the account of the National Judicial Council (NJC) for subsequent disbursement to the various heads of courts. The Constitution states that the budget of the judiciary is a first-line charge of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
JUSUN’s industrial action is the product of a string of issues on which the union, the office of the AGF, state governments and other appropriate government agencies, have failed to come to an agreement acceptable to all.
Following the judgment, about seven memoranda of understanding were signed between the union and the government.  JUSUN complained of several breaches by the government, but refrained from calling its members out to protest. Under the memoranda, it was resolved that direct funding of the judiciary would take effect from last December; that did not happen.
The union, which has argued that direct funding would enhance the independence of the judiciary from state governors, first embarked on a warning strike last July, and apparently got no reaction from the federal government. The current strike is a result of that lack of meeting of minds.  
Financial autonomy for the judiciary is a constitutional matter that has further been reinforced by the court ruling. The government, often accused of being nonchalant in respecting agreements it voluntarily made with trade unions, appears to confirm that perception in the present case, which was entirely avoidable.  The strike has inevitably caused widespread disruptions to the courts’ schedules; have remained closed to members of the public who have pending cases because judges cannot sit, and the activities of lawyers have also been crippled. Moreover, it comes at a very critical political season in the country, with crucial general elections just weeks away and the possibility of deluge of litigations.  
The government has not explained its reluctance to implement the judgment; there is no pending appeal in its name. It is also disturbing that the attorneys general of the federation and the states, who are chief law officers, are seen not to be holding the law.
The federal government should, without further ado, take steps to comply with the judgment of the court, which in any case is a constitutional matter meant to assure financial independence for the judiciary.  The status quo is a contradiction of not only the spirit, but also the letter, of the constitution.
Financial autonomy of the judiciary will wean that arm of government from the apron strings of the executive. This will facilitate the dispensation of justice through the speedy disposal of cases and ensure proper training for judicial staff and provision of adequate working tools.
But in view of the importance of general elections due in a matter of weeks, it is necessary to appeal to the patriotic sensibilities of JUSUN members, who have already made their point, to suspend the strike and return to the negotiating table in the hope that the federal government has learnt its lessons that it is uncharitable for it to keep dishonouring labour agreements and court judgments with impunity.
The National Assembly can also intervene in the matter by bringing the two sides to dialogue to avoid anything that can scuttle a smooth democratic transition of the country.