Justice Ademola Enikuomehin of the Ondo State High Court, has nullified several sections of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021, for violation of Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees financial autonomy for the State Judiciary.

The court in a judgment delivered Tuesday in a suit marked: HOW/12/2024: between Femi Emmanuel Emodamori Vs The Governor of Ondo State & ORS, also held that the claimant, Emodamori, and every Nigerian who alleges a breach of the constitution and establishes sufficient interest in a matter, has the locus standi or legal right to approach the court for redress. 

Justice Enikuomehin noted that the court’s decision relied on several recent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on locus standi in constitutional matters, to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the defendants in the case.

The suit which was filed in March in person by the claimant who is a lawyer, against the Ondo State Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, also has the State Attorney General, Kayode Ajulo (SAN) and the State House of Assembly, as defendants. 

Justice Enikuomehin in his ruling granted the reliefs sought by the claimant which include “A declaration that Sections 3(1),(2) (a) –(l), 4, 5, 6 (3), 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14(4) & (5) of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021 enacted by the defendants are null, void and of no effect whatsoever, for being inconsistent with Section 121(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guaranteeing financial autonomy for the State  Judiciary, to the extent that those Sections of that Law create and dictate the compositions of committee(s) to manage the State Judiciary funds, the contract approval mandate(s) or limits for the committee(s) and Heads of Courts, and compulsory supervision of all Ondo State Judiciary new building and major building renovation contracts by some departments or public servants under the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who must be paid supervisory/professional fees from the budgeted vote of the Judiciary.

“A declaration that the defendants lack the power to abridge, expand or in any way alter  the specific powers and/or responsibilities conferred on the Ondo State Judicial Service Commission by a community reading of Section 197 (1) (c) and (2), Part II of the Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and other section(s) thereof, by enacting Sections 3 (l), 4, 5, 8 (c) and 11 of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021 conferring powers or responsibilities on the Commission to participate in or superintend the award of contracts by or on behalf of the State Judiciary.

“A declaration that the additional powers and/or responsibilities conferred on the Ondo State Judicial Service Commission by the Defendants in Sections 3 (l), 4, 5, 8 (c) and 11 of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021 to participate in or superintend the award of contracts by or on behalf of the State Judiciary, are ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.”

The court also granted “An order nullifying Sections 3 (1), (2) (a) – (l), 4, 5, 6 (3), 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14(4) & (5) of the Ondo State Judiciary Funds Management (Financial Autonomy) Law, 2021.”

Speaking to newsmen after the judgment, Emodamori said, “The judgment represents a watershed in our collective quest for a truly independent State Judiciary that is free from the financial strangulation and suffocation of the executive and legislative arms of government as envisaged in Section 17 (2) (e) of the Constitution.”  

According to him, “The judgment simply means that the State Judiciary must be allowed to determine how to manage both its capital and recurrent expenditures like the other arms of government, rather than being superintended and subjugated by the executive through a Fund Management Committee.”

He said the committee is “largely comprised of the appointees of the Governor, including all members of the State Judicial Service Commission, whose constitutional responsibilities are strictly limited to the appointment, discipline and promotion of certain categories of judicial officers, and have no business awarding or superintending contracts on behalf of the State Judiciary as wrongly provided for under the provisions of the law that have now been nullified.”