ATTORNEY-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) has recanted his twin accusation against the judiciary of delaying high profile cases, particularly the trial of Political Exposed Persons (PEPs), and running an opaque budget. Mr Malami instead blamed “some mischief makers” for projecting “him as blaming the judiciary.”
Malami’s denial is contained in a statement on Wednesday (yesterday) by Dr Umar Jibrilu Gwandu, the Special Assistant on Media and Public Relations in the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. According to the statement, the Buhari-led federal government “accords respect to the democratic provisions of the doctrine of separation of powers among the three independent and separate arms of government” and that “the Federal Government maintained the sanctity of the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that delineate the roles and responsibilities of the executive, legislature and judiciary.”
Malami argued that “it was on this note that the Federal Government supported the review of Section 121(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to accommodate the provisions for financial autonomy of the state legislature and judiciary.”
According to the statement, it was also on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers that the Buhari government came up with Executive Order 10 in order to enforce the autonomy of state legislature and the judiciary.
The statement further reads:
“In addition to the Constitutional provisions, Malami explained that the Federal Government also came up with the Executive Order 10 to enforce the provision of autonomy of State Legislature and Judiciary.
“Malami said it is on the record that the Buhari-led Federal Government has a record of non-interference with or meddling into the affairs of the legislature and judiciary.
“It was within the context of this quality and feature of non-interference by the Buhari-led Federal government and for the avoidance of subjudice that the Minister responded that high-profile cases were presented by the Federal Government for prosecution and the government came out with initiatives in its efforts to support speedy determination of justice.
“He noted with dismay the way his response to a question in a recent interview was construed to evoke an unintended and non-existing inferences which some mischief makers projected him as blaming the judiciary.
“It was an innocent statement aimed at showing and re-enactment of tripartite division of powers and responsibilities among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.”
“Malami said this position was inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hon. Abdullahi Maccido Ahmad v. Sokoto State House of Assembly & Anor, (2002) 44 WRN 52 where the Court Per Salami JCA held inter alia that; “The doctrine of separation of powers has three implications:
“a. that the same person should not be part of more than one of the arms or division of government;
“b. that one branch should not dominate or control another arm. This is particularly important in the relationship between (the) executive and the courts;
“c. that one branch should not attempt to exercise the function of the other…”
“The Minister said in view of the crucial role of the judiciary as an essential element of democratic system, the Federal Government gives attention to the budgetary provisions of the Judiciary in addition to welfare-packages meant to enhance their operations.
Mr Malami had, while being interviewed by Channels Televison, totally exonerated the executive arm of government from the habitual delays in the trial of Politically Exposed Persons for corruption while in office. He instead blamed it as exclusively a problem engendered by the judiciary.
“You cannot by any stretch of imagination, place a blame associated with the conclusion and determination of the case on the doorsteps of the executive (arm of government). It is exclusively a judicial affair,” Mr Malami had, among other things said during the interview.
However, the head of the judiciary arm of government, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) had responded to the Attorney-General’s claims in a statement by his spokesperson, Mr Ahuraka Isah, denied the accusations stating that the blame is not one-sided as portrayed by Mr Malami.
“The position of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN) that the judiciary be held responsible for delays in the trial and delivery of judgements on corruption cases involving politically exposed individuals appears to be one-sided,” the CJN’s statement stated as he itemised the various ways the executive arm of government was culpable.
“The Federal Government’s prosecution sector files more charges than it can prove or provide witnesses to prove, ostensibly at times for the prosecution to even fail,” the CJN asserted.
The CJN while dismissing the accusation of operating an opaque budgetary system, also pointed out various mechanisms, both statutory and administrative, put in place to vet the budget of the judiciary.
