SPI-LAW Sues Edo Government Over Judiciary Autonomy, Seeks End to Executive Control of Court Funds
The Society of Public Interest Lawyers in Nigeria (SPI-LAW) has instituted a constitutional action at the Federal High Court, Benin Judicial Division, challenging the validity of the Edo State Judiciary Financial Autonomy Amendment Law 2023.
The suit, marked FHC/B/CS/97/2026, was filed on September 4, 2026, by the Incorporated Trustees of SPI-LAW against the Governor of Edo State, the Accountant-General of the Federation, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Edo State House of Assembly and the Accountant-General of Edo State.
The organisation has also filed an Ex Parte Motion seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from taking steps pursuant to the challenged Amendment Law pending the hearing of its Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.
SPI-LAW’s challenge centres on the constitutionality of the Edo State Judiciary Financial Autonomy Amendment Law 2023, which, according to the organisation, subjects capital funds of the Edo State Judiciary to executive proposals and approvals.
The public interest lawyers contend that the arrangement creates an unconstitutional distinction between recurrent and capital expenditure and is inconsistent with Sections 121(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
In particular, SPI-LAW relies on Section 121(3), which provides that:
“Any amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary of a State in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State shall be paid directly to the heads of the courts concerned.”
The organisation argues that the use of the word “any” in the constitutional provision admits of no exception, while the phrase “shall be paid directly” leaves no room for executive control or legislative appropriation of funds standing to the credit of the state judiciary.
SPI-LAW’s challenge centres on the constitutionality of the Edo State Judiciary Financial Autonomy Amendment Law 2023, which, according to the organisation, subjects capital funds of the Edo State Judiciary to executive proposals and approvals.
The public interest lawyers contend that the arrangement creates an unconstitutional distinction between recurrent and capital expenditure and is inconsistent with Sections 121(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
In particular, SPI-LAW relies on Section 121(3), which provides that:
“Any amount standing to the credit of the Judiciary of a State in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State shall be paid directly to the heads of the courts concerned.”
The organisation argues that the use of the word “any” in the constitutional provision admits of no exception, while the phrase “shall be paid directly” leaves no room for executive control or legislative appropriation of funds standing to the credit of the state judiciary.
Among the questions SPI-LAW wants the Federal High Court to determine is whether the Accountant-General of the Federation can lawfully disburse statutory allocations from the Federation Account to Edo State while the disputed Amendment Law remains operative.
The organisation is also asking the Court to determine whether the National Judicial Council can constitutionally consider and recommend the appointment of judicial officers for Edo State in circumstances where, according to SPI-LAW, the financial independence of the state judiciary is being undermined.
SPI-LAW is seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the Amendment Law is void to the extent that it is inconsistent with Section 121(3) of the Constitution.
It is also asking the Court to set aside and nullify the Edo State Judiciary Financial Autonomy Amendment Law 2023.
The organisation further seeks an order restraining the Accountant-General of the Federation from disbursing any statutory allocation from the Federation Account to Edo State pending the determination of the suit.
Another relief seeks to restrain the National Judicial Council from considering or recommending appointments of judicial officers for Edo State pending the determination of the case.
SPI-LAW is also seeking perpetual injunctions restraining the Governor, the Edo State House of Assembly, the Accountant-General of the Federation and other defendants from implementing or enforcing the challenged law or interfering with the direct payment of funds to the judiciary.
The organisation is additionally claiming N100 million as costs of the action.
SPI-LAW has filed a Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction aimed at preserving the status quo and preventing what it describes as irreparable damage to judicial independence pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Explaining the basis of the action, SPI-LAW Director, Media & Publicity, Sadiya B. Saleh stated that the purpose of Section 121(3) was to guarantee the financial independence of the judiciary “The purpose of Section 121(3) is to secure financial independence of the Judiciary. To allow Executive proposals and approvals on judiciary capital funds is to subject the third arm of government to the purse-strings of the Executive, in direct breach of the doctrine of separation of powers,” the organisation said.
The Society said it would rely on judicial authorities, including Olisa Agbakoba v. AGF and John Aikpokpo-Martins & Olukunle Edun v. Governor of Delta State & Ors, Suit No. A/164/2022, in which judgment was delivered on March 7, 2023.
According to SPI-LAW, the authorities support the principle that state governors lack the vires to impose conditions on the disbursement of funds belonging to the judiciary.
The organisation maintained that its action was instituted in the public interest and is aimed at safeguarding constitutional governance and judicial independence.
It urged all stakeholders to respect the Constitution and allow the Federal High Court to determine the issues raised in the suit.
It further reaffirmed its commitment to promoting good governance, the rule of law and the protection of public interest in Nigeria.
