Judicial overreach: A federal high court ruling that misses the mark

In a surprising and highly questionable decision, the Federal High Court recently issued a ruling blocking the release of constitutionally mandated federation allocations to Rivers State due to an internal issue: the absence of an Appropriation Law. The ruling, which mandates that allocations to the state remain inaccessible until the Rivers State House of Assembly passes the budget, raises serious concerns about judicial overreach, constitutional interpretation, and federal encroachment on state rights.

The Constitution of Nigeria is unequivocal when it comes to federation allocations. These funds, distributed from the Federation Account, represent the lifeblood of state finances and the essence of Nigeria’s federal structure. It is a state’s constitutional right to receive its allocated funds, with no caveats or exceptions that allow the Federal Government, or any federal agency, to withhold them for internal matters within a state. The framers of our Constitution clearly envisioned a financial system where state autonomy would be respected, free from federal interference—especially regarding the constitutionally guaranteed allocations from the Federation Account.

A Reminder of Supreme Court Precedent

This ruling contradicts the guiding principles established in SC 70/2004, where the Supreme Court definitively ruled against the withholding of federal allocations. In that landmark case, then-Chief Justice Muhammadu Uwais reaffirmed that federal allocations to states are constitutionally guaranteed. The Federal Government’s attempt to withhold funds due to Lagos State’s recognized Local Government Areas was deemed unconstitutional. This decision underscored a crucial tenet of our federal system: state allocations are non-negotiable and must not be subject to conditional release based on federal approval or state-level administrative issues.

Yet, despite this clear precedent, the Federal High Court’s recent ruling imposes just such a condition on Rivers State. By requiring the passage of an Appropriation Law before releasing funds, the court has effectively overstepped its bounds, disregarding both constitutional principles and the Supreme Court’s precedent. This is a ruling that undermines state autonomy, disregards judicial precedent, and invites questions about the impartiality of our judicial process.

Constitutional Missteps

The judgment appears to confuse the requirements for accessing a state’s Consolidated Revenue Fund with the rights of a state to its federal allocations. While the Constitution does stipulate that an Appropriation Law is required for spending from the state’s revenue fund, this should not affect allocations from the Federation Account. Once these funds are credited to a state’s account, they are a constitutionally protected entitlement. By conflating these two distinct areas, the Federal High Court has set a dangerous precedent that risks turning federal allocations into tools for federal interference in state governance.

Furthermore, the judgment raises critical questions about the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the separation of powers and respecting state autonomy. By intervening in the financial affairs of Rivers State, the court has strayed from its duty to uphold the Constitution impartially and without bias.

Upholding Judicial Integrity

This ruling risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality, raising questions about whether certain judgments reflect a genuine commitment to constitutional principles. At a time when Nigeria requires sound, principled interpretations of its laws, such a ruling only serves to deepen doubts about the judiciary’s role as an unbiased arbiter of justice.

In the interest of Nigeria’s democracy, it is crucial that judicial officers adhere to constitutional principles and respect the autonomy of each state. Our federal structure relies on a delicate balance that cannot be compromised by rulings that encroach on state rights. Nigeria’s courts must be reminded that their role is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench or permit federal interference where it is constitutionally unwarranted.

If there is any takeaway from this regrettable ruling, it is that the judicial branch must consistently uphold constitutional safeguards and remain vigilant against overreach. When judges go beyond the scope of their constitutional mandate, the judiciary’s integrity is called into question, and ultimately, it is the people of Nigeria who suffer the consequences.