Houses for judges: You got it all wrong- Wike’s aide tells Falana, sited several examples

The position expressed by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, that the construction of houses for judges and justices by the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), was unconstitutional and an embarrassment to the judiciary, has been described as patently wrong and a mere display of emotions and sentiments against the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike.

Senior Special Assistant to the FCT Minister on Public Communications and New Media, Lere Olayinka, in a statement in Abuja on Friday, insisted that there was nothing wrong in the Federal Government providing accomodations for judges as well as officials of other arms of government.

He said even though there is separation of powers in a democracy, there is also what is known as checks and balances, meaning that there can be no absolute separation of powers among the three arms of government.

Olayinka, who said Falana was totally wrong, added that there is nowhere in the world where one arm of government is completely independent of the others.

Recall that in September, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved the construction of 40 housing units for judges and justices in the FCT. Of the 40 units being constructed in the Katampe District, 20 will be allocated to the FCT High Court, 10 to the Federal High Court, and 10 to the Court of Appeal.

Since then, there have been pockets of criticism against construction of the houses, the latest coming from Falana, who insinuated that such action was capable of influencing the judges by saying that “you cannot be seen to be giving cars or houses to judges who are going to determine your cases.”

Responding, Olayinka asked; “Wouldn’t there still be need for land from the FCT Ministry if the houses were to be built by the judiciary? And if it is about exercising influence over the judiciary, is allocation of lands not enough?

“Also, the money to build the houses will still have to be appropriated by the National Assembly, peopled by politicians who also have cases before judges. Should we also say that bringing the budget of the judiciary to the National or State House of Assembly for passage will influence judges if cases involving the lawmakers are brought before them?

“Police and other security agencies provide security for judges and they do have court cases too, is Uncle Femi Falana also saying that the security agencies will influence the judges?

“Anti-Corruption agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC) investigate and prosecute judges, will Oga Femi Falana also say that investigation and trial of judges for alleged corruption should not be done by the anti-graft agencies so as to avoid influencing the judiciary?

“May be too, judges should create their own hospitals so that doctors, especially those in public hospitals won’t influence them. After all, medical practitioners too do have cases in court.

“Finally, may be judges should stop having friends and family members. They should be operating in seclusion so that no one will influence them. Or they should just create their own world so that they won’t be influenced by anyone.”

Olayinka, who advised Falana and others, to be more concerned about making the judges comfortable and secured to do their jobs rather than dissipating energy on the executive arm of government doing its own duties, said that “even in the United States of America where Supreme Court justices are seen as affiliated to political parties, right things are still done by the justices.”

He pointed out that apart from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President’s political party.

“The Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts do not play any role in the nomination and confirmation of the justices.

“The justices are even known by their political leanings and today, the U.S. Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, meaning six for the Republican Party and three for the Democrats. Yet, the justices do their jobs without anyone accusing them of being influenced by the President and members of his party in the Senate and House who appointed them,” he said.