Afam Osigwe, the president of the Nigerian Bar Association, warned that executive‑branch involvement in court infrastructure and judge welfare undermines the judiciary's integrity. Speaking on Channels Television, Osigwe said it is "wrong for the executive to build courtrooms, buy cars for judges, invite judges and hand over vehicles to them." He argued that such gestures portray judges as recipients of political patronage and erode public confidence in the justice system. "Sometimes it would appear that the judiciary is happy. The judges are happy to be paraded by politicians receiving cars, as if the person were doing them a favor," he observed, adding that the practice demeans both judges and the institution.
Osigwe stressed that judicial needs should be met through proper budgetary channels, insisting that "if the courts need houses, they should be put in their budget." He noted that governors often control statutory allocations, forcing chief judges to seek funds from government houses, which compromises perceived independence. The NBA chief also cautioned against the growing judicialisation of politics, warning that lawyers used as political tools could truncate democracy.
Afam Osigwe's blunt critique signals that the judiciary's credibility is being compromised by executive largesse. By turning courtrooms and cars into political tokens, officials are blurring the line that separates the bench from the bench‑warmers of power.
In Nigeria, governors and ministers have increasingly financed judicial facilities and gifted vehicles, a pattern Osigwe described as "political patronage." His insistence that such needs be handled through the budget underscores a systemic bypass of constitutional safeguards, while the anecdote of chief judges begging for statutory allocations reveals how financial dependence translates into real‑world vulnerability.
For ordinary Nigerians, especially those awaiting fair adjudication in election disputes or civil cases, the perception that judges owe favors to politicians can deter confidence in rulings. When courts are seen as extensions of executive influence, litigants may doubt the impartiality of outcomes, affecting citizens who rely on the judiciary for protection of rights.
This episode fits a broader trend of executive encroachment on independent institutions, echoing earlier concerns about politicised appointments and budgetary manipulation. If unchecked, such practices risk normalising a judiciary that answers more to political benefactors than to the constitution and the public it serves.
