By Dr. Kris Ayanruoh

When a governor hands the keys of a luxury duplex to a judge, the applause is instant. Cameras flash, speeches flow, and the event is hailed as a gesture of goodwill — an executive “investment” in the judiciary. But beneath the applause lies a dangerous irony: at what price comes justice?

In recent years, several Nigerian governors — and even the FCT Minister — have proudly built and gifted residential estates to judges, complete with SUVs and furnishing allowances. Supporters describe it as welfare; critics call it institutional capture through generosity. The optics are unmistakable — the benefactor of justice has become the subject of justice.

A Subtle Subordination of the Bench

The judiciary is constitutionally an independent arm of government, designed to interpret the law without fear or favor. But independence is not achieved by rhetoric — it is secured by economic and administrative self-reliance.

When judges depend on the goodwill of the executive for their homes, cars, or retirement comfort, that independence weakens, not through overt coercion but through quiet dependency. The Constitution foresaw this danger. That’s why judicial salaries and conditions of service are to be determined by law and charged on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not at the pleasure of any governor or minister. The law’s intent is clear: judges should be funded by the state, not fed by the executive.

The Gift that Binds

Executive generosity often masquerades as magnanimity, but it is, in truth, a currency of subtle influence. A judge who lives in a house donated by a sitting governor may never consciously favor the state, yet the perception of indebtedness alone is corrosive.

Justice Frankfurter once warned that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” The danger, then, is not only bribery — it is the slow erosion of confidence when citizens begin to suspect that verdicts are written not in law books but in ledgers of gratitude.

Tinubu’s Pay Reform: A Step in the Right Direction, But Not the Destination

To his credit, President Bola Tinubu’s administration recognized this problem. In 2024, he signed into law a 300% salary increase for judicial officers, marking the first comprehensive review of judges’ pay in nearly two decades.

The move was widely praised as a boost to morale and a recognition that an underpaid bench cannot deliver justice without fear or favor. Higher remuneration reduces the temptation of illicit influence and signals respect for the judiciary’s role.

However, this reform also reveals a deeper paradox: when the executive alone determines the timing, size, and publicity of judicial rewards, independence remains conditional. True autonomy is not when the judiciary receives gifts or raises from the executive’s goodwill — it’s when its funding is structured, predictable, and self-administered within constitutional limits.

Without structural reforms ensuring that the judiciary proposes, defends, and executes its own budget, including housing and infrastructure, every pay raise will still depend on political benevolence rather than institutional right.

Autonomy on Paper, Dependency in Practice

The 2018 constitutional amendment signed by President Buhari promised financial autonomy for state judiciaries, mandating that their funds be drawn directly from state treasuries. Yet in most states, implementation has been selective. Many executives still release funds at their discretion — sometimes delayed, sometimes withheld.

Thus, even after Tinubu’s salary reform, judges in many states remain vulnerable to the same structural dependency that autonomy was meant to cure. A one-time pay increase is a good beginning, but without fiscal transparency and budgetary independence, it is a temporary fix in a broken system.

Building Institutions, Not Gratitude

Judicial welfare should be a matter of constitutional duty, not political charity. Rather than personal gifts or one-off awards, Nigeria needs an institutionalized Judicial Welfare Fund, managed transparently by the National Judicial Council (NJC) and State Judicial Service Commissions.

Judges’ quarters should be official residences, not private property. Allowances should follow clear legal frameworks, not ceremonial generosity. And remuneration should be reviewed periodically by an independent fiscal commission, not announced at political convenience.

When judges can prepare and defend their budgets before the legislature, without executive filtering, their dignity will rest not on gifts but on governance.

A Call to Restore Dignity

The health of a democracy depends on the moral distance between those who govern and those who judge. Each time the executive gifts a personal house, cash allowance, or vehicle to the judiciary, that distance narrows — and democracy breathes a little less freely.

President Tinubu’s pay reform for judges is a welcome step, but the greater task lies ahead: institutionalizing financial autonomy so that no future administration can buy loyalty with comfort.

The price of justice should never be a handshake that blurs the lines of power. For in the end, when justice becomes indebted, the people become endangered.

Dr. Kris Ayanruoh is an engineer, a public policy analyst, leadership strategist, and commentator on governance and development issues. He is also the creator of the YouTube series “Dr. Kris’ Key to the Manager’s Mindset,” where he explores leadership, productivity, and institutional reform.