Daudu Responds To Falana, Says Wike’s Housing For Judges, Not Political

A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), has risen to the defense of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, after radical lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) accused the minister of trying to gain political favour from the judges by providing them with accommodation.
Falana in a well publicized comment has said the recent provision of residential accommodation by Wike was unconstitutional and an affront on the judiciary.
Daudu, who was addressing the Sixth Annual Criminal Law Review Conference in Abuja, dismissed claims by Falana that the houses could be perceived as an attempt to influence the judges. Daudu said Falana’s claims were unfounded and could damage the reputation of the judiciary.
Daudu, who is Coordinator of the Rule of Law Development Foundation, clarified that the constitutionally-defined overlap of functions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches allows for interdependent relationships, making it the executive’s responsibility to provide housing for judges. He further elaborated by citing instances of the executive exercising legislative or judicial functions, such as executive orders and legislative oversight powers.
“In a normal democratic system of government, it is not unusual to see the executive exercise legislative or judicial functions in certain instances,” Daudu stated, noting examples such as executive orders and legislative oversight powers.
The housing project, Daudu explained, is not a personal endeavor by the FCT Minister, but rather an approved budgetary item that has received presidential assent. He cautioned critics who view this initiative as a personal project of the minister, emphasizing that it is a constitutionally-backed programme designed to equip the judiciary for independent functioning.
“Critics portraying this initiative as a personal project of the minister are missing the point,” Daudu said. “It is a constitutionally approved program aimed at ensuring the judiciary is well-equipped to function independently.”
Daudu went on to highlight that providing accommodation for judges is not a novel concept, referencing historical precedents from the colonial era when judges resided in Government Reservation Areas. However, this practice was discontinued in 2007 during the monetization of government housing benefits, leading to significant challenges for judicial officers, including safety concerns.
Reinstating housing provisions for judges addresses these challenges, Daudu argued, thereby enhancing their safety, independence, and impartiality. He said, “Critics reducing this initiative to party politics fail to see the broader benefits”.
Furthermore, Daudu drew attention to the constitutional mandate that requires the executive to submit budgets and execute programs for all branches of government. He emphasized the importance of the three branches working in harmony, rather than at cross-purposes, and reiterated that providing housing for judges is an executive responsibility aimed at bolstering judicial operations. He said
“The three arms of government work in tandem, not at cross purposes,” Daudu said. “Providing housing for judges is an executive duty aimed at strengthening judicial operations.”