The recent decision by Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), to build 40 housing units for judges in Abuja raises many questions about the separation of powers and the appropriateness of the executive branch funding lavish accommodations for the judiciary. While Wike has defended this move as a necessary step to provide judges with adequate housing and improve their working environment, critics, such as the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), have described it as an act of “egregious corruption” and a violation of judicial independence.
The key issue here lies in the rationale behind the revocation of a 20-year-old land allocation to Julius Berger, a well-known construction company, to make way for these homes. Wike, during the flag-off of the project, explained that the land in Katampe District had remained undeveloped for two decades, prompting him to repurpose it for a “public good.” However, this raises deeper concerns about governance and the implications for Nigeria’s judicial independence.
Providing housing for judges is not inherently problematic, as adequate living conditions are crucial for maintaining the mental and emotional well-being of judicial officers. Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun even praised the initiative as a milestone in supporting the judiciary’s welfare, emphasizing how these homes would offer judges the peace and security needed to perform their duties effectively.
But this argument glosses over a fundamental principle of democracy—the separation of powers. The judiciary, as an independent arm of government, should not be financially indebted to the executive, which controls public resources. HURIWA has rightly pointed out that the move could compromise the impartiality of the courts, especially in cases involving the government. When judicial officers receive such lucrative benefits from the executive, the public may question their ability to rule impartially, particularly in cases involving the very government that provides them with these assets.
Moreover, the speed with which the FCT administration has moved to deliver these housing units ahead of other pressing public needs suggests an underlying political agenda. The project could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with judges, perhaps even influencing future rulings. This raises ethical questions: Can the judiciary, which draws its funds directly from the Federation Account, remain truly independent if it accepts such benefits from political actors?
As HURIWA argues, this development could signal a slippery slope where judicial officers feel obliged to act in ways that protect their benefactors, further eroding public trust in the courts. With Nigeria gearing up for the 2027 elections and several legal battles likely to arise, ensuring an impartial judiciary is more important than ever.
READ ALSO: Hon. Emeka Chinedu: FCT Committee Appointment and Its Impact
While the provision of housing for judges might seem like a progressive step, it is vital to ask: at what cost to the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary? Judicial independence must be preserved, and steps that blur the lines between the executive and judiciary should be carefully scrutinized. The building of homes for judges by the executive, especially through the controversial revocation of land rights, could have long-term implications for Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
- By Kennedy Onyegbado; a Publicist, and Writer
