Wike Defends Housing For Judges, Faults Criticisms

Mr. Lere Olayinka, the Senior special assistant to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has countered claims by human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) on building of houses for judges and justices by the ministry.

Falana had described the initiative as unconstitutional and an embarrassment to the judiciary, but Olayinka, dismissed the claims as misguided and emotionally driven.

In a statement released in Abuja yesterday, Olayinka maintained that there was nothing inappropriate about the federal government’s decision to provide accommodation for judges and officials across various branches of government.

Wike Vows To Demolish Buildings On Green Areas In FCT

He stressed the importance of understanding the balance between the separation of powers and the necessary checks and balances within a democratic system.

“While separation of powers is a fundamental principle, it does not imply absolute independence of one arm of government from another. There is no country in the world where one governmental branch operates completely independently of the others,” he said.

In September, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved the construction of 40 housing units for judges in the FCT, with 20 units designated for the FCT High Court, 10 for the Federal High Court, and 10 for the Court of Appeal.

Since the announcement, the initiative has faced criticism, particularly from Falana, who suggested that providing housing could unduly influence judicial decisions.

“You cannot be seen to be giving cars or houses to judges who are going to determine your cases,” he said.

Olayinka questioned the logic behind the criticism, saying, “Wouldn’t there still be a need for land from the FCT Ministry if the judiciary was solely responsible for housing? If the concern is about undue influence, is the allocation of land not also a factor?” he asked.

He further pointed out that the funding for the housing units would have to be approved by the National Assembly, which is composed of politicians with cases before the judiciary.

“Should we claim that bringing the judiciary’s budget to the National or State House of Assembly for approval might influence judges in legal matters involving lawmakers?” he said.

Wike’s aide also explained other instances of potential influence on the judiciary, questioning whether security agencies providing protection for judges should also be viewed as a possible source of bias.

“Anti-corruption bodies like the EFCC and ICPC investigate judges; does that mean their work should be limited to avoid influencing the judiciary?” he said.

Olayinka further urged Falana and others to focus on ensuring judges have a comfortable and secure environment to carry out their duties instead of criticizing the executive for fulfilling its responsibilities.

“Even in the United States, where Supreme Court justices are often connected to political parties, they still execute their duties effectively without allegations of undue influence,” he said.

He noted that U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, often with input from party affiliates, yet they maintain their integrity regardless of their political leanings.

“The current Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, yet justices are able to do their jobs without accusations of influence from political appointments,” he said.