They contended that the order was a clear violation of sections 6 and 8 of 1999 Constitution, which made it the responsibility of the federal government to fund the listed courts.
Augustine Alegeh, who represented the states, stated this while making submissions in the suit seeking to quash the presidential executive order 00-10 of 2020, which mandates state governments to fund the judiciary. The plaintiffs further stated: “That Section 121 of the constitution makes provision for all capital and recurrent expenditures for courts not established under Section 6 of the constitution by the respective plaintiff’s states.”
“We have to admit to ourselves that what we are practising in this country is constitutional democracy and not true federalism.” He further pointed out that the issue of salary and emoluments are expressly stated in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government, but that the section was silent on funding of capital projects.However, Alegeh urged the supreme court to discountenance the argument by the AGF.
“JUSUN cannot raise a dispute between the states and the federal government. Only the states or the federal government can trigger the original jurisdiction to come to the supreme court,” he added.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: PremiumTimesng - 🏆 3. / 78 Read more »
Source: DailyPostNGR - 🏆 11. / 59 Read more »
Source: Daily Trust - 🏆 13. / 51 Read more »
Source: THISDAY LIVE - 🏆 14. / 51 Read more »
Source: PremiumTimesng - 🏆 3. / 78 Read more »