OLISA AGBAKOBA vs. FG, THE NJC & NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/63/2013

PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN ADDRESS

IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS DATED 1ST FEB. 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Written Address is in support of the Originating Summons dated 1st February, 2013, for the determination of five questions; upon which the Plaintiff seeks seven reliefs.

1.2 The questions and issues are set out in the Originating Summons.

1.3 The Originating Summons is supported by an affidavit of 22 paragraphs deposed by Olisa Agbakoba, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Life Bencher and Senior Counsel at Olisa Agbakoba & Associates

1.4 We rely on all the paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
2.0 FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE

2.0 The facts that gave rise to this suit are clearly set out in the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons; especially paragraphs 9 to 20

2.1 The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN 1999) makes provision for independence of Nigerian Judiciary, from the Executive Arm of Government, i.e. the 1st Defendant, as it relates to judicial appointment process, interference with the judicial process, security of tenure, remuneration and finance.

2.2 The CFRN 1999 contains provisions to guarantee financial independence of the Judiciary. They are Sections, 80, 81 and 84. The objective of these sections was to secure independent funding of the Judiciary in Nigeria, free from executive interference and control.

2.3 Section 81(2) and Section 84(i), (2), (3), (4), and (7) CFRN 1999 exempted the annual budget estimates from Executive Appropriation Bill, by the 1st Defendant. By virtue of these provisions the remuneration, salaries and allowances of judicial officers and the recurrent expenditures of the Judiciary should be charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and paid directly to the 2nd Defendant.

2.5 Rather than implement these Constitutional provisions that guarantee judicial independence, the Defendants are in joint continuing breach of same. As a result of this, the judiciary is dependent on the 1st Defendant for its Budgeting and Funds in the manner stated in the Affidavit in support of the Originating summons.

2.6 Contrary to Section 81(2), 84(i), (2), (3), (4), and (7) CFRN 1999, the present practice is that the 2nd Defendant submits its annual budget estimates to the Budget Office of the 1st Defendant for inclusion in the Executive Appropriation Bill sent to the 3rd Defendant.

2.7 In contravention of Section 81(3) of CFRN 1999, funds standing to the credit of the Judiciary are not released directly to the 2nd Defendant. The funds are released through warrants by the Budget Office of the 1st Defendant.

3 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

3.1 In view of the grounds of relief stated in our summons it is submitted that the issues for determination are clear-cut and straightforward. To prevent undue proliferation of the questions for determination, we have reduced the questions to only one issue to wit:

Whether the present appropriation practice of the Defendants, whereby the Judicial Arm of Government is dependent on the 1st Defendant for judicial estimates and funding does not indeed violate Sections 81 and 84 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and therefore unconstitutional?

4.0 ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUE

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 The basis of this case is the doctrine of Separation of Powers; which proposes that powers of the government are divided into separate and distinct arms of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. This doctrine has been traditionally accepted in various jurisdictions; including Nigeria.

4.2 The underlying concept of the doctrine of separation of powers is to ensure the independence of each branch of government.
4.3 In relation to the judicial arm of government, an independent judiciary is crucial to upholding the rule of law in a democratic society. The rationale for an independent Judiciary is to enable the Courts to freely decide cases without external influence and to provide enough funds to maintain and sustain judicial business.

4.4 Independence of Judiciary is a universally recognised concept. Many International Conventions support this. The conventions are:

(i) The UN Basic principles of the Independence of Judiciary

(ii) The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles of the Accountability and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government

(iii) International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutor, A Practitioner’s Guide

(iV) Bangalore Principles on the Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms

4.5 It is submitted that the overreaching issue in this Case is whether the Nigerian Judiciary is constitutionally guaranteed to be financially independent from the Executive Arm of government, i.e. the 1st Defendant?

FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY IS CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED

4.6 The basis of financial independence of the Judiciary is contained at Part E of the Constitution relating to powers and control over public funds. This part of CFRN 1999, in particular, Sections 80, 81 and 84, gives the Judiciary power and control over its own funds. A discussion of Sections 80, 81 and 84, follows.
Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation – A Pool of National Income

4.7 Section 80 of CFRN 1999 establishes the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Federation. S.80 (1) CFRN 1999 states as follows:

All revenues or other moneys raised or received by the Federation (not being revenues or other moneys payable under this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly into any other public fund of the Federation established for a specific purpose) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

4.8 S.80 (1) CFRN 1999 requires all of Nigeria’s revenue, with a few exceptions, to be paid into Consolidated Revenue fund of the Federation. The exceptions are moneys the constitution or an Act directs to be paid into “any public fund” for a specific purpose. This fund is therefore the main bank account where Nigeria’s principal fund is paid into. Funds to run Government business is authorized by Section 80(2) as shown in the following analysis.

Authorization of expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation

4.9 Section 80(2) of the CFRN 1999 provides how monies are withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. Section 80 (2) of the CFRN 1999 states:

No moneys shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation except to meet expenditure that is charged upon the fund by this Constitution or where the issue of those moneys has been authorized by an Appropriation Act, Supplementary Appropriation Act or an Act passed in pursuance of section 81 of this Constitution.

4.10 Section 80(2) recognizes only 2 ways money can lawfully be withdrawn from the consolidated Revenue Fund, namely:

(a) By direct charge upon the fund, and
(b) By appropriation.
4.11 The analysis of Section 80(2) will show that direct charge withdrawals relate to the Judiciary, while appropriation withdrawals relate to the 1st Defendant. In other words, the Judiciary is funded by direct charge, while the Executive /1st Defendant is funded by appropriation.

(a) Withdrawal by Direct Charge – Judiciary.

4.12 Sections 84(1), 84(2), 84 (3), 84(4) and 84 (7) CFRN 1999, stipulate that recurrent expenditure of the Judiciary, remuneration, salaries and allowances paid to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justices of the Supreme Court, President and Justices of the Court of Appeal and other Judicial are charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

4.13 The aforementioned Sections are set out below, for ease of reference:

84(1) There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National-Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

84(2) The remuneration, salaries and allowances payable to the holders of the offices so mentioned shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

84(3) The remuneration and salaries payable to the holders of the said offices and their conditions of service, other than allowances, shall not be altered to their disadvantage after their appointment.

84(4) The offices aforesaid are the offices of …, … Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge and Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Chief Judge of a State, Judge of the High Court of a State, Grand Kadi and Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, President and Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Grand Kadi and Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, President and Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State …,

84(7) “The recurrent expenditure of judicial offices in the Federation (in addition to salaries and allowances of the judicial officers mentioned in subsection (4) of this section) shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

4.14 The combined effect of the foregoing provisions is that the recurrent expenses, remuneration, salaries and allowances of Judicial Officers are charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.

4.15 In addition to the Constitution stipulating independent funding of the Judiciary, Section 81(3) states that:

The amount standing to the credit of the

a. …
b. …
c. Judiciary

In the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the said bodies respectively; in the case of the Judiciary, such amount shall be paid to the National Judicial Council for disbursement

4.16 The analysis of the Constitutional structure of the funding of the Judiciary shows that independent funding of the Judiciary is not followed by the Defendants as stipulated by the Constitution. Public Officers and Institutions are required to obey the Injunction of the Constitution prescribed by Section 1(3) that declares its supremacy and any act or action inconsistent with the Constitution will be void. The act or action of the Defendants in failing to follow the funding structure of the Judiciary prescribed by the Constitution, is unlawful and the Court is respectfully urged to so hold.
4.17 It is our respectful submission that, on the basis of the questions submitted for determination, this Honourable Court should hold as follows:

(i) By virtue of Section 81 (2) and Section 84(i), (2), (3), (4), and (7) CFRN 1999, the remuneration, salaries, allowances and recurrent expenditures of the Judiciary are charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and therefore do not part of the estimates to be included in the Appropriation Bill as proposed expenditures by the 1st Defendant.

(ii) By virtue of Section 81 (i), (2), and (3) (c) and Section 84(2), (3), (4) and (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN 1999), annual budget estimates of the 2nd Defendant is not subject to appropriation by the 1st and 3rd Defendants.

(iii) The practice of the 1st Defendant, laying the estimates laying the estimates of the 2nd Defendant before the 3rd Defendant and the practice of the 3rd Defendant appropriating the funds of the 2nd Defendant violate Sections 81 (2), (3) (c) and 84(2), (7) CFRN 1999 and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

(iv) By virtue of Section 81 (3) CFRN 1999 monies standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be fully paid directly to the 2nd Defendant.

(b) Withdrawal by appropriation – 1st Defendant

4.18 The second method of release of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund namely by appropriation, applies only to the 1st Defendant; as provided by Sections 81(1) and (2) of CFRN 1999. The charge process in turn applies only to the 2nd Defendant.
4.19 Section 81(1) authorises the President (1st Defendant) to present his Annual Budget Estimates to the National Assembly (3rd Defendant). Your Lordship will see that Section 81(1) applies generally to estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the Federation, but Section 81(2) specifically excludes expenditures charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund from the general estimates.

4.20 Section 81(1) and 81(2) is set out below for ease of reference:

81(1) The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.

81(2) The heads of expenditure contained in the estimates (other than expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation by this Constitution) shall be included in a bill to be known as the Appropriation Bill, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein.

4.21 It is submitted that funds for the Judiciary (remuneration, salaries, allowances, etc.) charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation as envisaged under Section 81(2) are not subject to appropriation by the 1st and 3rd Defendants.

4.22 The only fund relating to Judiciary that is subject to appropriation is the capital expenditure, because it is not provided in Section 84(2) and Section 84(7) which set out funds charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

4.23 The Court is invited to note the carefully chosen words employed by Section 80(2) relating to authorisation of withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These words are “charged” and “appropriation”. We have already discussed “charge” and “appropriation” in relation to the estimates required to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, so we will not repeat it again.

4.24 It is clear that the framers of our Constitution wanted to make the Judiciary independent of the 1st and 3rd Defendants. The device that was designed to achieve this is the financial independence granted to the 2nd Defendant. The design is that Heads of expenditure required to operate the Judiciary is by Section 81(2), outside the heads of expenditure, that the President of Nigeria, represented by the 1st Defendant, lays before the 3rd Defendant, who appropriates the request, into a Bill and signed by the 1st and 3rd Defendants. The judicial budget does not go through this appropriation process. This is clear from Sections 81(1) and 81(2). The judicial expenditure is designed as a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is the 2nd Defendant that should prepare estimates that is charged and received by it pursuant to provisions of Section 81(3) below:

The amount standing to the credit of the

d. …
e. …
f. Judiciary

In the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the said bodies respectively; in the case of the Judiciary, such amount shall be paid to the National Judicial Council for disbursement

4.25 It is submitted that the practice that requires Heads of Courts and the 2nd Defendant to appear before the 3rd Defendant for budget defence is unconstitutional being contrary to Section 81(3). The correct mode of funding the Judiciary as stipulated by the Constitution is discussed below.

Correct Mode of funding the judiciary

4.26 Contrary to the present practice of funding the Judiciary in the manner we have discussed, the proper mode is as follows:

The 2nd Defendant prepares its annual estimates for the Judiciary consisting of:

(i) Remuneration, salaries and allowances of Judicial Officers as prescribed by the 3rd Defendant in Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances, etc) Act 2008. This may come to X billion Naira, and also prepares

(ii) Estimates of recurrent expenditure of judicial offices, say XX billion Naira

The total estimate, say XXX billion Naira, is then charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund and paid in full, direct to the 2nd Defendant; without interference by the 1st and 3rd Defendants. As we have earlier stated, capital expenditure for the Judiciary is not charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund, so it is the only fund relating to Judiciary that is subject to appropriation by the 1st and 3rd Defendants.

4.27 It is submitted that that the practice of funding the Judiciary as shown in the Affidavit is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It is further submitted that this practice undermines the constitutionally guaranteed financial independence of the Judiciary. The Court is requested to so hold.

Present Mode of Funding is Unconstitutional – Statutory Transfers Versus Constitutional Transfers

4.28 The present mode of funding the Government is by appropriation of funds, for example the Appropriation (Amendment) Act 2011 (AA 2011); but this is wrong as it relates to the Judiciary represented by the 2nd Defendant. The AA 2011 appropriated N4 Trillion. N417 Billion were Statutory Transfers to the 2nd Defendant, 3rd Defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission etc, N495 billion for Debt Service, N2 Trillion for Recurrent (Non-Debt) Expenditure and N1 Trillion for Capital Expenditure. See Section 2 of the Act.

4.29 In AA 2011, the 1st and 3rd Defendants purport to authorise the issue of funds for the Judiciary, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, by Statutory Transfers. See Section 2 of the Act. See also Part A of the First Schedule of the Act. The Judiciary is funded by Statutory Transfers. The funds are then released to the Judiciary in tranches. The role of 1st and 2nd Defendants under AA 2011 is shown by Sections 4, 8(1) and 9 of the Act, reproduced below:

4 “All amounts appropriated under this Act shall be released from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and applied only for the purpose specified in the Schedule to this Act”.

8(1) “No funds shall be paid out of the monies arising from the record specified in Section (4) except by an Act of the National Assembly”

9 “The Minister of Finance shall ensure that funds appropriated under this Act are released to the appropriate agencies and organs of government as at when due, provided that no funds for any quarter of the fiscal year shall be deferred without prior waiver from the National Assembly”.

4.30 It is submitted that the mode of funding the Judiciary under AA 2011 is wrong and unconstitutional. Also is the role of the 1st and 3rd Defendants in the process.

4.31 First Section 81(2) of the CFRN 1999 provides that “the heads of expenditure contained in the estimates (other than expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation by this Constitution) shall be included in a bill to be known as the Appropriation Bill, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein”.

4.32 Section 81(2) of the CFRN 1999 clearly excludes funds charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund from appropriation. Funds for the Judiciary are charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund by virtue of Section 84 of the CFRN 1999, therefore excluded from appropriation.

4.33 Further, the Constitution itself authorises the 2nd Defendant to withdraw funds direct from the Consolidated Revenue Funds, not the 3rd Defendant; as purported by AA 2011. It is therefore submitted that the practice whereby the 1st and 3rd Defendants appropriates funds for the Judiciary and then statutorily transfer the funds to the 2nd Defendant derogates from direct Constitutional Transfers prescribed by the Constitution.

4.34 Second, the Minister of Finance controls release of funds to the Judiciary in quarterly tranches in violation of Section 84(7) of the CFRN 199 which prescribed that “The recurrent expenditure of judicial offices in the Federation (in addition to salaries and allowances of the judicial officers mentioned in subsection (4) of this section) shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation”.

4.35 The practice also contravenes Section 81(3) of CFRN 1999 which stipulated that “The amount standing to the credit of the …, … Judiciary, In the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation shall be paid directly to the said bodies respectively; in the case of the Judiciary, such amount shall be paid to the National Judicial Council for disbursement”

4.36 In the circumstance this Honourable Court, is respectfully invited, to hold that the present appropriation practice is a violation of Sections 81 and 84 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and therefore unconstitutional.
4.37 The 4th question raised in the Originating Summons to wit: Whether the continued Dependence of the Judiciary on the Executive Arm for its Budgeting and Funds Release is not directly responsible for the present state of under-funding of the Judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the Judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial services delivery, and general low quality and poor out-put by the Judiciary, should be answered in the affirmative.

4.38 A recent interview given by Olufunlola Adekeye JSC (Retired) to This Day Newspaper, illustrates the state of inadequate funding of the judiciary and the need to implement the relevant sections of the Constitution providing for independent funding of the Judiciary. Justice Adekeye said: “… remuneration of the judiciary members is very low. That can breed corruption”. See paragraph 21 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.

4.39 After 46 years in service and reaching the peak of her career, Justice Adekeye has left service unable to as much as provide her own housing!!! Her lament was echoed by Justice Mustapha Akanbi in 1996, 7 years before. Justice Mustapha Akanbi, a retired President of the Court of Appeal said:

“… Already many of serving justices are complaining of poor condition of service. They complain that their salary grading is low and unrealistic and the facilities are not just there. Many say that they have been reduced to a state of penury, some live a beggarly life, some have even become endangered specie”.

“…Poor condition of salary will not attract honest and decent men to the Bench and it will be a sad day for us all when those who aspire to judicial offices are all crooks and cranks. For when crooks completely take over we are doomed…”

4.40 It is submitted that the continued Dependence of the Judiciary on the Executive Arm for its budgeting and Funds Release is directly responsible for the present state of under-funding of the Judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the Judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial services delivery, and general low quality and poor out-put by the Judiciary. We invite this Honourable Court to answer the 4th question for determination in the affirmative.

4.41 Many articles highlight the need for an independent judiciary. See “The independence of the Judiciary in Nigeria’s Third republic” and “Independence of the Judiciary under 1999 Constitution: A Critique”, by Nnamdi Aduba.

4.42 Justice Mustapha Akanbi also expressed concerns in “The Judiciary and the Challenges of Justice”, Patrioni Books 1996, where he states:

“Now as before funding the judiciary has been one of the intractable problems with which the Nigerian Judiciary has had to contend. Conference after conference motions have been moved, resolutions passed and decisions taken on how to fund the judiciary, yet the problem remains unresolved. The resolutions are hardly implemented.”

4.43 Implementation of the Constitutional requirement of financial independence is the key to the Constitutional guarantee of a strong, independent and fearless Judiciary. In conclusion, we invite this Honourable Court to declare the Financial Independence of the 2nd Defendant in particular and Judiciary in general.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 In summary, it is submitted that an independent Judiciary is fundamental to a democratic state. As succinctly stated by Dr. T Akinola Aguda in “The Judiciary in the government of Nigeria” New Horn Press, Ibadan (1983), at page 34 “to sustain a democracy in the modern world an independent, impartial and upright judiciary is a necessity”. This is why the International System has developed Conventions to promote this concept. See:

(i) The UN Basic principles of the Independence of Judiciary; Appendix 1
(ii) The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles of the Accountability and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government; Appendix 2
(iii) International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutor, A Practitioner’s Guide; Appendix 3
(iV) Bangalore Principles on the Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms; Appendix 4

5.2 The CFRN 1999 contain similar provisions to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary; Sections 81 and 84.

5.3 The Honourable Court is respectfully invited to note the persuasive effect of the Conventions and urged to use them in the interpretation of Sections 81, 83 and 84 of the CFRN 1999.

5.4 The Honourable Court is respectfully requested to grant the Orders contained in the Originating Summons, namely:

1 A Declaration that by Section 81 (2) and Section 84(1), (2), (3), (4), and (7) CFRN 1999 the remuneration, salaries, allowances and recurrent expenditures of the Judiciary, being constitutionally guaranteed Charges (or “First Charge”) on the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Federation, DO NOT form part of the estimates to be included in the Appropriation Bill as proposed expenditures by the President as is the present practice.

2 A Declaration that by virtue of the constitutional guarantee of independent funding of the judiciary under Section 81 (1), (2), and (3) (c) and Section 84(2), (3), (4) and (7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN 1999), the 2nd Defendant ought NOT to send its annual budget estimates to the Budget Office of the Executive Arm of Government or any other Executive Authority as is the present practice BUT ought to send the estimates directly to the 3rd Defendant for appropriation.

3 A Declaration that by virtue of Section 81 (3) CFRN 1999, any amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation ought NOT be released to the Judiciary in warrants or other means through the Federal Ministry, the Budget Office, the office of the Accountant General of the Federation or any other person or authority in the Executive Arm as is the present practice, BUT to be paid directly in whole to the 2nd Defendant for disbursement.

4 A Declaration that the continued Dependence of the Judiciary on the Executive Arm, represented by the 1st Defendant for its Budgeting and Funds Release IS directly responsible for the present state of under-funding of the Judiciary, poor and inadequate judicial infrastructure, low morale among judicial personnel, alleged corruption in the Judiciary, delays in administration of justice and judicial services delivery and general low quality and poor out-put by the Judiciary.

5 A Declaration that the present practice on Judiciary funding by the Defendants, which is DEPENDENT on the Executive Arm in budgeting and release of funds IS in violation of sections 81 (2), (3) (c) and 84(2), (7) CFRN 1999 and therefore unconstitutional, null and void.

5 Perpetual Injunction against the Defendants from all practices on Judiciary funding which run contrary to Sections 81 (2) (3) and 84(2) (7) CFRN 7999, to wit, submitting Judiciary’s estimates to the Executive instead of directly to the 3rd Defendant and release of the Judiciary’s fund in warrants by the Executive instead of directly to the 3rd Defendant for disbursement.
6 A Consequential Order, restraining the 1st and 3rd Defendant from appropriating the funds for the Judiciary in the Annual Appropriation Act.

7 A Directive that the 2nd Defendant shall prepare the Judiciary’s annual estimates as charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation and submit it to the Accountant General of the Federation for Constitutional Transfer to the 2nd Defendant.