When we talk about government budgets, the spotlight usually falls on roads, schools, or hospitals. But what about the courts? Who pays for the buildings where justice is served, the cars judges drive, or the staff housing behind the high walls?
If you think the answer is simple, think again. Nigeria’s judiciary budget process is a tug-of-war between the Executive, the National Judicial Council (NJC), and State Governors. And at the heart of it lies a burning question: Can the third arm of government truly function independently if the other arms control its purse strings?
Let’s break it down.
The Federal Level: A Tale of Two Budgets
At the federal level, the judiciary’s funding is split into two distinct parts:
· Statutory Transfers (The NJC’s Money): The National Judicial Council (NJC) receives a direct allocation—₦521.6 billion was proposed for 2025. This covers judicial salaries, pensions, and general operations. In theory, this money is meant to be released automatically.
· Capital Projects (The Executive’s Grip): This is where things get messy. Money for building court complexes, judges’ quarters, and purchasing vehicles falls under the capital budget. And who controls that? The Executive—specifically, the Minister of Justice and the FCT Minister.
Here’s the kicker: even when capital projects are approved, funds are often “warranted but not cash-backed.” Translation? The money exists on paper but never reaches the contractors. In fact, reports for 2025 showed that 0% of the Federal Ministry of Justice’s capital budget was actually released for project execution.
So, while the NJC gets a statutory transfer, the Minister of Justice holds the keys to the construction sites.
Who Submits the Judiciary’s Budget?
Currently, the President submits the entire federal budget—including the judiciary’s needs—to the National Assembly. That means the Executive decides what goes into the proposal.
But a growing number of voices are pushing for change. A proposed bill wants to allow the Judiciary to present its budget directly to the National Assembly, bypassing the Executive entirely. The goal? To strengthen financial independence and reduce political interference.
The States: Autonomy on Paper, Control in Practice
Now, let’s zoom in to the state level. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) grants state judiciaries financial autonomy. Section 121(3) says funds for state courts must be charged directly to the state’s Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Sounds good, right? But here’s the reality:
· In Ondo State (2026) , the judiciary’s budget was slashed by over 40%. Autonomy, it turned out, applied only to salaries—not to capital projects for buildings or vehicles.
· A 2023 court ruling in Delta State declared that the Chief Judge should submit the judiciary’s budget directly to the State House of Assembly, bypassing the Governor. But enforcement remains a challenge.
· In April 2026, the Supreme Court ruled (by a 4-3 split decision) that State Governments are responsible for funding capital projects for state high courts. That means Governors cannot simply pass the buck to the Federal Government.
Yet, in practice, many Governors still control the release of funds. They approve budgets, but when it’s time to cash the cheque? Delays, cuts, or outright refusal.
Who Builds the Courts and Provides the Vehicles?
Let’s get specific:
Item Federal Level State Level
Court buildings FCT Minister (for Abuja) / NJC State Government
Judges’ housing Executive / FCT Minister State Government
Vehicles for judges Capital budget (controlled by Executive) State Government (often withheld)
At the federal level, the FCT Minister Nyesom Wike recently announced plans to build houses for FCT High Court judges and a new magistrate court complex. That’s the Executive stepping in to fill the gap.
At the state level, the Supreme Court has now affirmed that Governors cannot escape this responsibility. But as the Ondo example shows, approval on paper doesn’t always mean cash in hand.
The Bottom Line
Nigeria’s judiciary is constitutionally independent, but its budget process tells a different story. From the FCT to the smallest state capital, the Executive arm still wields enormous power over court infrastructure, vehicles, and housing.
The NJC receives statutory transfers, but the Minister of Justice controls capital projects. State Chief Judges have constitutional autonomy, but Governors hold the cheque books.
Until the proposed direct budget submission bill becomes law—and until state governments fully comply with Supreme Court rulings—the third arm of government may continue to look over its shoulder at the second.
Justice delayed isn’t just justice denied. Sometimes, it’s justice underfunded.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 