A Federal High Court, Abuja has ordered substituted service on the 36 State Governors in a suit seeking financial autonomy for the judiciary.

Justice Binta Nyako gave the order after counsel to the plaintiff, Oba Maduabuchi, SAN, moved the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/502/2021.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the plaintiff, Emeka Okoye, in an originating summons, had sued the 36 states through their Attorney Generals.

Other defendants in the originating summons dated June 18 are the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC), and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

Moving the ex-parte motion, Maduabuchi prayed the court for an order of substituted service on the defendants. 

He urged the court to grant his application for a national courier outfit, Red Star Express, to serve as special bailiff to effect service of the originating summons and other accompanied processes on the defendants as good and proper service.

He submitted that originating summons for service on the defendants outside jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ is governed by the provisions of Sections 97 and 99 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and not the rules of the court issuing the originating summons.

The senior lawyer further submitted that without the leave of the court sought and obtained, the service of the originating processes on the defendants would be null and void and liable to be set aside upon application by the defendants.

Justice Nyako granted the prayer to serve the 36 state Attorney Generals by substituted means by posting the originating summons and other processes through courier services to be delivered to their various addresses.

She adjourned the matter until Dec. 7 for hearing.

NAN reports that In the substantive suit, the plaintiff, is seeking an order of the court, “directing the Federation Account Allocation Committee (2nd defendant) to henceforth pay directly all monies standing to the credit of the judiciary to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

Among the questions he formulated for the court to find an answer to in resolving the matter is “whether by the provisions of Sections 121 (1), (2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), it is proper for the state governor to include the budgetary expenditure of the judiciary in the state which is charged upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state in the budgetary estimates the Governor presents to the state House of Assembly.

“Whether by the provisions of Section 121 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended), it is proper to pay funds standing to the credit of the judiciary in the state to any other person or authority outside the heads of court in the various states as directed by Section 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

“Whether by the community reading of Sections 81(3), 121(3) and 162(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended), the Federation Account Allocation Committee is right in paying the fund standing to the credit of the judiciary to various state governors and not National Judicial Council as directed by the above sections of the constitution?”

He sought an order of the court “directing the Federation Account Allocation Committee (2nd defendant) to henceforth pay directly all monies standing to the credit of the judiciary to the National Judicial Council (NJC).”

The plaintiff prayed for “an order directing the Accountant General of each state of the federation to pay directly to each head of court in the state, all such funds standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the state,” among others.