Amid growing concern over the poor state of Nigeria’s courts, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has decried the inadequate funding of state judiciary. Her remarks have reignited debate on judicial independence, financial autonomy, and accountability in the justice system, ANNE AGBI reports.
The gavel, though mighty, is faint without funding. Once again, the nation’s attention has turned to the fragile state of Nigeria’s judiciary, with leaky roofs, dark courtrooms, and weary magistrates telling a silent story of neglect in Nigeria’s justice system.
At the opening of the Supreme Court’s 2025/2026 legal year and the inauguration of 57 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, raised an issue that has long troubled the nation’s justice system; the underfunding of the judiciary at the state level.
She did not mince words as she lamented the neglect and financial dependence of state judiciary on their respective governors.
“The judiciary, especially at the sub-national level, is often underfunded, which impacts its ability to function effectively.
“Inadequate funding leads to poor infrastructure, insufficient resources, and inadequate training for judicial officers and support staff,” she said.
The situation is despite increased allocations to states. For the first half of 2025 (January–June), the 36 states shared around N4.1 trillion from the federation account.
Her comments reignited a national conversation about the independence, efficiency, and integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary, an arm of government constitutionally empowered to act as the final arbiter in disputes but often forced to operate under the shadow of executive control.
In Nigeria’s democracy, the judiciary’s financial autonomy has been a recurring issue. While the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees separation of powers, its practical enforcement, particularly at the state level, remains weak. Governors largely control judicial budgets, leaving courts dependent on the goodwill of the executive for operational funds and capital projects.
Legal experts, advocates, and judicial analysts who spoke with The Nation agree that the chronic funding gaps have undermined judicial independence, delayed justice delivery, and eroded public confidence in the rule of law.
Human rights lawyer, Dr. Onyekachi Ubani (SAN), believes that the lack of financial autonomy for the judiciary is not accidental. In his view, it is a deliberate strategy by political leaders to keep the third arm of government weak and submissive.
“The governors do not want independence of the judiciary,” he began emphatically. “They claim to buy cars and build houses for the judiciary, but that money is meant for justice, for the courts. As long as the judiciary lacks independence, they cannot function normally.”
Ubani described the situation as not just embarrassing, but dangerous for both the justice system and its officers. He recalled shocking experiences in some courts where the physical conditions mirror the institutional decay.
“You go to some courts and, if it rains, it rains both on the lawyers and the litigants, including the magistrate. I was once in a courtroom when the roof caved in, and the magistrate escaped by sheer luck. It was that bad. Most of our courts are extremely hot, and many have no power supply. Some don’t even have generators. If you’re lucky, you have light; if not, proceedings are suspended.”
For Ubani, the problem is not just poor infrastructure but the dangerous dependency it breeds.
“If you don’t have funds, you can easily be compromised. When you don’t give the judiciary money, you render them weak and vulnerable to manipulation. You make them kneel down and beg for what is constitutionally theirs. And when that happens, of course, there will be an overreach. The executive becomes the master, and the judiciary must obey.”
He warned that a financially starved judiciary inevitably becomes an extension of the executive rather than a check on its excesses.
“When you starve the judiciary, you render it impotent, you make it impossible for the courts to act boldly or impartially. That is why autonomy, financial and administrative, is not a luxury, it is a necessity. A strong judiciary is one that can stand for the people, dispense justice without fear, and act as the conscience of the nation. Give them the resources to do that.
“There are some states already observing autonomy,” he noted. “At the federal level, they now control their funds. That’s what we need to replicate across the states.”
Judiciary’s problems run deeper than funding
Legal practitioner and good governance advocate, Barr. Dr. Chima E. Nnaji, however, argued that the challenges facing the judiciary, particularly at the state level, go beyond inadequate funding. According to him, they stem largely from defective leadership, political interference, and the erosion of competence and legitimacy within the system.
“It is true that the judiciary in many states is striving to survive, not just because of the governors’ control, but because of the quality of leadership within the judiciary itself,” Nnaji said.
“Some Chief Judges may be brilliant in law and procedure but are poor administrators. Administration is a leadership role that goes beyond one’s professional calling; it requires governance capacity, foresight, and the ability to convert vision into tangible results.”
Nnaji noted that public perception of judicial leaders directly affects how other arms of government treat them. He likened the moral decay in some state judiciaries to a loss of institutional respect.
“When the heads of courts are seen as weak, politically biased, or lacking legitimacy, even genuine calls for financial independence will not be taken seriously. The legislature, the executive, and even the public will treat such a judiciary with disdain,” he observed.
“If a Justice opens one eye to see whether the litigant belongs to a political party, then justice itself becomes compromised. When the judiciary is perceived as partisan, it loses the moral authority to demand autonomy.”
He further warned that the problem of accountability within the judiciary mirrors the wider corruption in governance.
“When appointments are products of corruption, transparency becomes impossible. Those who were appointed through political favour cannot act independently. You cannot give what you don’t have.”
Dr. Nnaji argued that the judiciary’s internal management of funds also requires scrutiny.
“Corruption in the judiciary is not only about taking bribes. It manifests in the misappropriation of funds, manipulation of systems, and disregard for due process,” he explained. “Even the adjudication process has been corrupted to the point that precedents are no longer reliable. Lawyers now struggle to know what the law truly is because decisions are inconsistent.”
He cited examples from recent political cases to illustrate how inconsistent judgments have eroded confidence in the courts.
“Look at what happened in Plateau State,” he said. One governor remains in office on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, while legislators who went through the same process lost at the Court of Appeal because their cases could not go further. When the law becomes uncertain, justice becomes an illusion.”
On whether constitutional amendments could strengthen judicial financial independence, Nnaji was sceptical.
“We have been amending the Constitution endlessly since 1999, the problem is not the law itself. The constitution, as it stands, provides for judicial autonomy, but the will to implement it is missing. Those in charge have turned amendment processes into a self-serving enterprise.”
He likened Nigeria’s constitutional reform efforts to “a cloth being squeezed endlessly, while those holding the cup keep collecting the drippings for themselves.
“If we are serious, we can make things work without further amendments. The question is: who will implement it? The problem is the human factor, greed, lack of conscience, and absence of integrity,” he maintained.
Dr. Nnaji stressed that competence and integrity must guide judicial appointments and leadership selections.
“If you appoint people based on loyalty or family ties, you’ll get mediocrity. The judiciary needs administrators who combine legal expertise with managerial skill. A brilliant lawyer is not automatically a good judge, and a good judge is not automatically a good administrator,” Nnaji said.
The advocate also explained that when judicial leaders demonstrate credibility, other arms of government and the public naturally support them.
Using vivid metaphors, he described Nigeria’s leadership crisis as one that diverts attention from governance to political survival.
“Competence attracts collaboration,” Nnaji noted. “When the judiciary is led by capable, visionary people, even the executive and legislature rally around it. But when incompetence reigns, leaders resort to diversion, stirring ethnic and political sentiments to mask their failures. Leadership should be about thinking ahead, solving problems before they arise.”
He concluded that judicial financial independence will only be meaningful if accompanied by ethical renewal and visionary leadership.
“Hope is like a lily; it never dies,” he said. “There was a time when Nigerian judges like Oputa, Kayode Eso, Niki Tobi, and August Nnamani commanded respect even under military rule. They stood up to power with little funding but great courage. What we need now is a return to that moral and intellectual strength.
“Money alone cannot save the judiciary,” he said. “We need character, conscience, and competence. Once those are restored, funding will no longer be the biggest problem.”
Systemic decay
Echoing the CJN’s concern, legal analyst Jonathan Iyieke described the state of the judiciary as a moral and constitutional crisis that has persisted for far too long. He said the problem is not just about money, but about the slow moral erosion of an institution once regarded as the guardian of justice and fairness.
“It’s unfortunate that these complaints are not new in our society,” he said. “For more than three decades, poor funding of the judiciary has hampered the quality of justice delivery. It’s turning the institution created to fight corruption into the very vice the society must now fight and win to exist.”
Iyieke questioned how a judiciary that depends on the executive for financial survival could ever claim to be independent.
“We crave independence of the judiciary, but how can the courts be transparent and accountable when their financial survival depends on the legislature for approval and the executive for release of funds? I wonder how judges, magistrates, and lawyers survive in such an ill-equipped system.”
He pointed to Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which clearly provides that funds meant for the judiciary should be paid directly to the heads of courts. Yet, he lamented, this provision is routinely ignored.
“We know there’s corruption within the judiciary itself,” he admitted, “but unless and until we obey the Constitution, we can’t make headway. The judiciary will continue to suffer and complain about inadequate funding until bureaucracy and partisan politics are eradicated.”
Iyieke said the recent inauguration of 57 new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) was a proud milestone, but one that must be matched with deeper institutional reform.
“It’s a laudable achievement, but it will be better if we all get committed to fighting the evil devices that weaken the judiciary. Inadequate funding leads to poor infrastructure, insufficient resources, and lack of proper training for judicial officers. All these can stop if we want them to.
“Nigerians must wake up from slumber to uphold the provisions of our Constitution and shun corruption in all spheres. The judiciary is the soul of our democracy. If we lose it, we lose everything.”
Judicial independence is being eroded
Constitutional lawyer Evans Ufeli, Esq. shared similar concerns, whilst stating that the CJN’s warning is legitimate and long overdue. He said chronic underfunding has created a ripple effect of dysfunction that touches every level of the justice system, from court staff to litigants.
“Courts need predictable, adequate funding to perform their constitutional functions,” Ufeli said. “Public statements like the CJN’s draw attention to systemic risks such as case backlogs, poor infrastructure, compromised security, and low personnel welfare, all of which follow chronic underfunding.”
According to Ufeli, most state judiciaries are grossly underfunded, and the consequences are dire. identified executive interference as a major cause of the problem.
“You see reduced staff morale, retention problems among magistrates and registrars, and longer case backlogs because of insufficient judges and support staff. Court infrastructure is deteriorating; record storage is unsafe; and there’s little or no access to digital tools. The result is a justice system that crawls instead of runs.
“When the executive controls appropriations and cash releases to the judiciary, it undermines independence. It allows political pressure to dictate the pace of justice. The absence of statutory guarantees for direct remittance makes courts dependent on goodwill instead of law.”
Ufeli proposed both short- and long-term reforms aimed at rescuing the judiciary from financial suffocation.
“In the short term, judiciaries should adopt multi-year budget planning linked to performance indicators, strengthen internal budget capacity, and ensure direct remittance of allocations where the law allows. We must also prioritise digitisation, e-filing, case management, and remote hearings, to increase efficiency and reduce recurring costs.”
He also called for structural and legislative guarantees and stated that transparency is equally important.
“We need a formula-based minimum allocation for the judiciary, possibly a fixed percentage of state revenue, to prevent arbitrary cuts. Judicial service commissions must have stronger roles in financial and administrative matters. And we need ring-fenced budgets that protect core operations from executive interference.”
“Let the judiciary publish its budgets and audited statements. Strengthen internal audits, adopt e-payment systems, and invite civil society to monitor performance. When people see that funds are properly managed, confidence in the courts will naturally grow.”
Source; The Nation News