 Nigerian governors' foreings still are not happy with President Bahra's executive order number 10. And the Christian Association of Nigeria advises the National Assembly to focus on insecurity as against the Hijab bill. This is plus politics, and I am Marianna Khan. The platter-state governor, Simon Lalong, who is also the chairman of the Northern Governors' Forum, has stated that the federal government could not force states to implement financial autonomy for the judiciary and the legislature, but that governors are not opposed to it. Now Lalong said that there were steps that needed to be taken before the autonomy could be implemented. So joining us to have this conversation is Richard Wakocha, he's a professor and associate professor of public law at the River State University and Kala Wali Uluwadari, he's a deputy director, social economic rights and accountability project. Sarah, thank you very much Kala Wali for joining us and professor, thank you for being here. Thank you very much, Marianna. Okay, so Kala Wali, I'll start with you. This seems to be a case between the federal government and the Northern Governors' Forum, because of course state governors in the Northern region seem to be kicking against this, and I am thinking it's not just the governors in the North, I guess maybe generally the governors in states are kicking against this. They're saying that they cannot force governors to enforce financial autonomy. That's talking about the federal government. What's your take on this, this issue of financial autonomy for the judiciary and the legislature? Thank you very much. Financial autonomy for the judiciary is not only right, it is legal, and that is why the concern of the unmeaning the token of a section 81 or section 121, to capture what is then called a judicial autonomy, which also affects the legislature. And what it simply means in practical terms is that any funds that are standarded with the credit of the judiciary, both the record as individuals and salaries and allowances, and that of the captives when beach or for the logistics and infrastructure needs of the courts, should go directly to the heads of courts in each state, and that the executive should have no, should not have the kind of influence they are, which of course is different than politics and financial over the judiciary. And I believe the intent of that is to make the judiciary truly independent and to do its job. Knowing fully well the role that the judiciary plays in the democracy. When it's very wrong to play any kind of politics with the independence of the judiciary, and knowing fully well the negative consequences of such an action. So it is something that should be done, and it has been done, the law has been amended, and that guy has won the law in the constitution. So it's really worrisome that would have governments disobeying the constitution on that any guy. Executive of the ten is not really needed in the street set, since we have constitutional provisions that give peace to the judicial autonomy. But being that that is made, the executive of that is made, it should be a report. Interesting. Governor Lalong of Platteau State also said that there are measures that must be taken, this is their argument, before the autonomy could be implemented. So what should states be considering as regards this? Because I mean what measures is the governor referring to, because he's hopped on it in his statement over and over again, while he was speaking to the press, that there is a process that needs to be taken or gone through, but that the federal government didn't go through that process. So explain to us in layman terms what this process could be and why governments are so headstrong about it. I really don't understand the process that the governor's forum is referring to. I don't understand. The constitution is very explicit as to our own use of the judiciary as to the root test. And naturally the national judiciary comes through. The provision of the cross-scale of the constitution part one, it takes custody of those strong and from there it goes to the edge of the courts. That is primarily the correct estimate of the courts, which is salaries and allowance of jerks. And that also is what should happen to the capital and the job, the infrastructure of the courts. So there is really no process. I'm struggling to understand what the governors are trying to do as a process. At any rate, the specific provisions of the decade of 2010 is clear. And I recall, I recall, I think I think I think six or so, that in order to give respect to the constitutional provisions in section 81 and 121 about judicial autonomy, that in general the federation has not the right to deduct from source that is the funds due to each state by way of allocation, funds that are due to judiciary, and send it to the edge of the courts. That is just simple. There is no process as it were. But if the law again is clear that salaries and allowance of juggies are drawn from the consider a new fund of the federation and all that required capital and veto are also drawn from the consider a new fund of the state. So the practicalities of sending money, budgetary allocations, it's not something that needs any special process. After all, the states get the allocation from Abidah every month without any kind of any special process. Even if they want the governors get their unlawful security votes every month without any special process. So I don't understand the need or what is done by the special process for the judiciary to get what is due to without influence from the governors in the states. Okay, Professor Wakotcha, let me pose this next question to you. Governor Lalong also is arguing that the federal government didn't consult them. This is another argument he's making. He said that making the order 10, sorry, executive order 10 is just a pronouncement. He's saying that the law does not expressly say anything on financial autonomy. So it seems very complicated. He's saying that this is just a pronouncement. That that executive order doesn't say expressly anything about the financial autonomy of the judiciary, neither of the legislature. So Professor, help us understand this. Are they both different when he says that you know it's the court just made a pronouncement saying that it's totally different from you know the issue of the financial autonomy in the constitution? I think the the governors need to I want to presume that the governors have not consulted the autonomy general because the autonomy general should be able to make things clear to them. There is no confusion anywhere. There is nothing complex anywhere. As my colleague said a moment ago, the law is clear. The constitution says in section 81 and 121 whatever money is due to the legislature and to the judiciary for purposes of running of those places salaries allowances etc etc is charged to the consolidated funds. It doesn't say it should be paid through the consolidated funds to the governors for the governors or the states to distribute to them. No it says it's charged to the consolidated funds should be released directly to the heads of those institutions. Now there should be no confusion here. The responsibility for releasing money from consolidated funds is a federal responsibility and executive order. I don't know what as they are expecting and executive order is a directive from his chief executive officer to his subordinates in the executive department. It directs them on how to implement the law which he has the responsibility as chief executive to implement. So it's a very straightforward thing. The president by order 10 executive order 10 is asking the accountant general to release the money due these institutions to them directly as directed by the constitution. The provision of the constitution is non-negotiable. It leaves no room for any form of negotiation. There is nothing to consult them about. Not obey the constitution. It's a breach of the constitution and it's an insurmountable offense. So there is nothing to talk about concerning consultation, presidency consulting them. Executive order 10 does no relate to them. It's a directive from the president to the general to carry out his responsibility with the constitution places on him. It makes me really wonder why the governor seems so worried about this if it has nothing to do with them but then you and I know, of course Kalaoile also knows this that the judiciary workers are already on strike as we speak and state governors are saying that they're going to be meeting on this matter but this isn't the first time that governors have said or they're going to have a roundtable conversation with judiciary workers to you know deal with the issue but if the governors on one hand are saying that they do not they do not appreciate or understand or rather agree with the executive order number 10 what exactly what conversation are they going to be having with judiciary workers? Again there's implementation of financial autonomy of states judiciary and legislature. This has been affirmed by the federal high courts since January of 2014 so why has it taken the state so long and now they're saying they want to come to the table? What is the bargaining chip here because I don't see any help me? There is nothing to bargain with respect to the legitimacy and implementability of executive order 10. There is nothing to discuss the governors have the same power to make executive order with respect to their responsibility in the state but they have no say and have no role to play with the president exercising the presidential executive powers of issuing an executive order with respect to its responsibility under the constitution. Now what are they going to discuss with the striking workers? Perhaps what they are going to do is say if they can convince them to call off the strike but their promise that they are going to implement the constitution. Even without the judgment of the federal high court the order of the constitution the provision of the constitution is a mandatory order the violation of which as I said earlier is an impeachable offense. You cannot refuse to do what the constitution says should be done. But they've refused to do it unfortunately and this is not just for the judicial workers it also affects the legislature and one would expect that if this is an impeachable offense the houses of assembly in these states are supposed to take it upon themselves because they're also not left out but they seem to be quiet on this matter also. So do they really it makes one wonder if they really want the independence of all the arms of government in the states? You know we have had a very unfortunate situation where the executive controls the legislature and so the quality of governance we get is grossly reduced. The legislature is supposed to be coming up with policies which the executive will implement but what will have nice is the station where the legislature does just whatever the executive says they should do. So the consequence of that is that they cannot assert themselves that if they become independently funded as provided by the constitution and as directed by the president on the executive order 10 to the auditor general I am sure the governors are afraid that they will be powerful and they will be better able to do their work because as I said not implementing section 81 and 121 of the constitution it's a breach of the constitution and it's an impeachable offense so the reason that they are not asserting themselves is that they are not independent and that is what the governors are trying to maintain by seeking every means possible to delay the implementation of their autonomy. I'm coming back to you Kola Wale. The governors have said that they are also sovereign and that the presidency cannot be giving them orders or backing orders at them because you know they are also elected officers of sorts and just like Professor Wakacha has said in the case where these workers refuse after they have had this meetings with the governors there have been times when threats have been issued that they would lose their jobs if they do not go back to work so where is the justice in that if that becomes the case? It's unfortunate that we have this situation on our hands today and it's going to be more unfortunate when clearly it's not so if this is a great up to what you mentioned now what we've seen playing out is just another level of impunity that we've seen at the IS office in the lamp and the presidency now it's been done by the governors the constitution is clear the rules that each and everyone is meant to play is clear and I struggle to understand the argument that the states are sovereign the law itself the constitution is very clear no state in Nigeria is sovereign what we have as sovereignty in Nigeria is Nigeria not the states and that law is very plain itself also so I wonder what the discussions will be at a state level and in fact we the governors need not make any promise to amend the law because they are bound by the oath of autonomy to obey the constitution so there's really nothing to back in with what we see playing out is the governors trying to hold on to their control they have over the legislature and judiciary in the states and we've seen that play out clearly in the civil system when we've seen our politics that played out in the legislative houses in which state and judiciary we've seen our governors bike as the judges and celebrate it which of course is just the worst form of tokenism ever these are ones that belong to them judges are public officers that should be treated right like just like any public officer so why would governors buy cars for judges and celebrate it and wants to be congratulated on it and it what these doors really and which should affect everything in the industry it affects governance the principle of separation of power which is meant to make democracy a good experience is being eroded at least I've been going on for a while and we've seen it play out now with the executive in control at the federal level and with the executive in control represented by the governments and the statesmen while we are turning to what is autocracy it means judiciary are not free to do their job it means the executives are not they are not free to do their job and so without um autocracy from the executive of administrators that should not happen that can only needs to what can only need to break down of law and not do you apply it as a different role so what you would expect from this president's type action is for the governors to commit and begin immediately to obey the constitutional prohibition section 81 and section 121 let me go to what something that struck me something that governor Lalong said to the press he said and I quote we the governors are saying no saying we don't need the order to force us to implement it makes so it makes me wonder really because they're saying that they don't need this order to make them implement or carry out an implementation so what's stopping them because in one breath you're saying you don't want it in another breath you're saying we don't need an executive order to make us implement anything so um how do you implement if you are saying no again to this executive order which is putting more pressure on you to allow the judiciary to be free to do what it wants to do with his own money is that way it looks like there's some balance um what exactly and and then he's they mentioned of something that they said something that it is subjudiced that executive order 10 is subjudiced now i'm not a lawyer so i don't really understand what that means saying that look if the court had said this in January this executive order makes it subjudiced please explain to me i am a layman here i wouldn't know the case they are referring to i know that the governors have gone to court since sometimes last year or so to challenge the order 10 and i'm not particularly aware of the use of law that submitted the determination before the court but be that as it may without executive order 10 section 81 is clear and i'm happy that professor opochad said that too and section 1 and 21 is clear so if by any reason let's say for any reason even the courts this room court which is the court of original jurisdiction where declared that the executive order 10 it shouldn't have been made what about its provisions of the conditions that are clear and i believe those ones they need no interpretation so whether it's subjudiced i wouldn't know what i mean by the thing that the issues and until we are aware of it we need to submit about the condition before the supreme court i will not be able to comment specifically on that but as far as we all know section 81 and section 121 is yet to be amended so as it were as of today that is the law of the land and even if they have gone to court in the start of school we should be maintained is the provisions of that law to obey and so i really it's this is just politics really and this is a plain politics which what is important we're talking of this strike is not meant to be all over the state of negan's and the director for serious offenses and even petty offenses is the mean or this strike is going to mean people are going to spend more time in for this question if they are not granted an initiative there it cripples everything and we have the goblin's plain politics with this kind of important matter really to me this is the highest that we can see your opportunity or again this is not surprising it's in the federal government and even disobeying the order of the court so what what would be the gov literally took me to my next question because i was going to say that these governors would also be it's a pop calling kettle black situation where oh look you have dis you have disobey court orders in time pass why would ours be different and why should you be ordering us about someone we're not working for you and literally they're not working for the president so really you just asked my next question they are saying you have no rights to tell us to obey a court order or any court order because you don't obey court orders as the federal government but let me ask this question uh professor walko child um while president la long was being asked or questioned after the meeting that they had um some members of the press asked him why the this the government are foot dragging on this issue and why it has taken so long he said that they weren't um foot dragging but that if they were consulted they would have told the federal government the best way to go about it now when asked governor la long said that um he insisted that there has to be a process and that a state allocation committee should be established do you agree that you need a state allocation committee of sorts to um monies for monies to be transferred directly to the judiciary's account and is that not another uh office that would need to be staffed and payments would be done really is that necessary i want to understand maybe it's constitutional or not i can tell you um governor la long is completely wrong and anybody who holds out to you is completely wrong first let's make this clear that nobody is asking them to obey a court order there is a constitutional provision it's not the provision of an act of the national assembly it's a provision of the constitution that directs it does not say you may it does not say when it is convenient or when you have good processes in place it says monies due the legislature at the state level for the running of the legislature and monies due the judiciary for salary and allowance and running of the court should be released directly to those courts that constitutional order is not to govern us it is to the president because those monies are charged to the federation account the consolidated account of the federation okay so the order is to the the constitutional directive is to the president that the national government should release monies due these institutions directly to them it has nothing to do with the governors absolutely nothing so it's not about obeying a court order it's about obeying the provision of the constitution which is mandatory i think that order 10 was informed by frustration of the presidency or frustration of the federal government uh as a result of the fact that the governors were not obeying the constitution and the legislature that should supervise them we are not doing anything about it i mean the legislature at the state level we are not doing anything about the disobedience to the constitution i think that frustrated the presidency excuse me into coming up with executive order 10 it's not about the president it's not about the order it's a constitutional provision and it must be obeyed now there is something i see that is probably confusing the governors that is if at all that has anything to do with the claimed confusion if you want to make a vote for capital expenditure for the judiciary that is outside the salaries allowances and money for running the courts if you want to do that in your state budget you can do that that's a different issue but when it comes to the money that is required for running the court from day to day year to year that is not subject to the state and the state has nothing to do with it the constitution has ordered the federal government to release that money directly to the institution that is the import of section 81 and the section 121 so it doesn't require governors playing any role it doesn't require any consultation it doesn't require setting up anything because it doesn't require the governors to play any part in that business in other words transmitting the money from the because of the fund to the so in other words the government don't even have a case here and they're crying foul for something that does not necessarily concern them but i just want to quickly wrap this up by asking i mean the governors seem to have been their hands are you know have been tied when it comes to local governments because of course now local governments monies are going directly to the local government accounts and that's what the this out of 10 is also hoping to do for the judiciary and the legislature um of course this doesn't sit well with the governors because they were enjoying the monies that were coming to their accounts but in the long run because both of you work for the judiciary both of you are learned gentlemen do you see this changing anytime soon with the reactions that we're getting from the governors call out i would like for you to start quickly calling can you hear me i believe that the uh judicial workers stick to their gun and continue the strike at some point the governors will be forced to be reasonable i believe that they will be forced to be reasonable uh but if they go back and relax and say let's trust them and all that the things will remain the same for a long time because the executive at the center cannot come down to cost the legislature at the state level to take the nursery action that the constitution expects them to take where the chief executive at the state level disobeys the constitution and color any so you can only change if the strike continues uh color will you like to add something before we wrap this up yes i believe that the president and i believe they shall do everything necessary to give to what the constitution has said another time and we've seen the national assembly do that the national assembly formed this by tragedy transfer they made a law some years ago that makes a dialogue on the first one in fact on the national assembly so why can't that be done for the next little at the state and and and that the judiciary too i believe the president should insist on what the law says and make sure that it's done okay well color will it will do it works with sarah but of course professor walker cha is an associate professor of law at the university river state university in river state thank you very much gentlemen for being part of the conversation we'll take a short break now and when we return we'll make a decision key jab law or insecurity which one weighs on the scale state team will be right back