The recent completion of 40 housing units for judges in Abuja has reignited debate over the separation of powers, with many questioning whether the executive branch’s funding of such lavish accommodations for members of the judiciary is consistent with the principle of judicial independence, Davidson Iriekpen writes
The media was abuzz recently with news of the inauguration of official mansions for judges of the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja by the Minister of the FCT, Mr. Nyesom Wike, with many analysts questioning the appropriateness of the projects.
While the initiative aims to boost judicial welfare, security, and independence by removing judges from vulnerable rental areas, critics have argued that it could create perceptions of undue influence on the judiciary and compromise its perceived neutrality by tying judges to political benefactors.
The provision of standard official residences is globally acceptable for top judicial officers. However, the specific implementation—characterised by political fanfare and massive executive involvement—remains a subject of intense public concern.
Officials of the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) said the project comprises 20 duplexes for judges of the FCT High Court, 10 for judges of the Federal High Court, and another 10 for justices of the Court of Appeal.
Each residence is a seven-bedroom duplex equipped with luxury features, including private swimming pools, home theatres, staff quarters, and advanced security systems.
Proponents, including President Bola Tinubu and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, have maintained that befitting housing and secure environments would give judges peace of mind to interpret the law fairly.
Specifically, Justice Kekere-Ekun praised the initiative as a milestone in supporting the judiciary’s welfare, emphasising that the homes would provide judges with the peace and security needed to perform their duties effectively.
Also, supporters of the initiative and other government officials insist the criticism is misplaced. They argue that providing adequate accommodation for judges is a standard government responsibility and aligns with the constitutional role of the FCT administration in supporting all three arms of government.
According to them, several judges reportedly lived in rented apartments and guest houses, a situation authorities say posed security risks and could undermine judicial independence.
Even the FCT minister, Wike, has dismissed criticism that the residences are excessive, insisting that providing secure and dignified living conditions for judges is essential to strengthening the rule of law and protecting the integrity of the judicial system.
He denied claims that the construction of homes for judges in Abuja is intended to influence the judiciary politically, adding that the housing project is not his personal initiative but rather part of a welfare package introduced by President Tinubu in 2024 to ensure the judiciary’s independence.
However, the scale and luxury of the houses have triggered intense reactions from a cross-section of Nigerians, with many comparing them to the deplorable conditions in which teachers and medical doctors live in the same Abuja.
This, they stressed, comes amid persistent economic pressure across the country, with rising food prices and widespread hardship affecting millions of households.
They also pointed out that high-profile, politicised fanfare around the housing projects creates the perception that the bench is beholden to political power and, as such, erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
A human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), condemned the houses for judges, arguing that it is wrong for the executive to give gifts to the members of the judiciary, especially judges. He said this is why the judiciary’s autonomy has been constitutionalised, adding that judges have no business going to the executive to buy them cars and houses.
“Because you are a minister of the federal government, like a state governor, your budget is limited to the affairs of the FCT. So, you cannot, as the head of the FCT, be dishing out gifts of cars and houses to judges in the Federal High Court, the Appeal Court, and the Supreme Court.
“Number two, you have cases before these courts, on the theory of equality before the court, you cannot be seen to be giving cars or houses to the judges who are going to determine your cases.”
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who spoke to THISDAY on condition of anonymity, argued that, as an independent arm of government, the judiciary should be properly funded, like the other two arms of government, to provide vehicles and houses for judges.
“The judiciary is supposed to be on the first line charge, like other arms of government, to be able to address all that the judges and other officials need. Giving them cars and houses by the executive arm of the government will definitely compromise them and erode judicial integrity,” he said.
Recently, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe (SAN), faulted state governors and the executive branch for publicly gifting houses and cars to judges. He argued that this practice compromises judicial independence.
Osigwe maintained that the judiciary’s operational needs—including courtrooms and staff quarters—should be fully funded through an independent budget, not at the political mercy of governors. He warned that publicly presenting vehicles or homes makes judges beholden to political figures, and erodes public trust in the judiciary’s ability to remain impartial, especially when providers have cases pending in court.
The NBA president emphasised that the judiciary must be financially autonomous, insisting that judges’ official needs, including transportation and housing, should be adequately covered by proper, independent budgetary allocations rather than executive handouts.
“It is concerning to us that the governors would do things for the judiciary as if they were doing them a favour. Often, it’s annoying to see some governors talk about how ‘Oh, I give cars to my judges,’ or even invite the judges to a public presentation of vehicles or other materials to members of the judiciary.
“The judiciary should be an independent part of government and should not be demeaned or reduced to a point where members of the judiciary should be given handouts as if a favour was being done to them,” Osigwe stressed.
Another human rights activist, Samson Adaku, in a series of social media posts accused the government of prioritising the welfare of judges while ordinary Nigerians struggle to survive. He argued that similar housing support is not provided for other critical professionals, such as doctors and teachers, raising questions about the government’s broader spending priorities.
On his part, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has described it as an act of “egregious corruption” and a violation of judicial independence. In a statement, its Director, Emmanuel Onwobiko, stressed that as an independent arm of government, the judiciary should not be financially indebted to the executive, which controls public resources.
The group also said the move could compromise the impartiality of the courts, especially in cases involving the government.
