Tehe issue of judicial remuneration has been a matter of concern for justice sector stakeholders, certainly since the return of Nigeria to democracy in 1999. There is a consensus that any discussion on justice sector reform, must necessarily include consideration of judicial salaries and allowances. It is almost unbelievable, that judicial officers in Nigeria have been on the same salary scale for well over a decade. Compared to the other arms of Government, the Judiciary appears to suffer some of the worst conditions of public service. Yet, successive governments since 1999, have glossed over the issue. To an objective observer, it would seem like a contradiction in terms for Nigeria and Nigerians to desire a world class judicial system, and yet, saddle a key enabler of that system with poor conditions of service. This was the position until recently, when President Muhammadu Buhari directed RMFAC (Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission) to commence the review of remuneration of judicial officers. In a 144 paged memorandum jointly signed by Yakubu Maikyau OON, SAN, President of Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, Alternate Chairman, NBA Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service, the NBA makes a compelling case for an urgent radical review of Judicial Remuneration. The memorandum proposes an ambitious 200% increase, in the basic salaries of all Judicial Officers. Also noteworthy, is the total overhaul of what currently consists of judicial allowances. Perhaps, the most radical proposal yet, is the recommendation on removing judicial office holders from the purview of RMFAC, and the establishment of a separate panel to oversee matters concerning Judicial Salaries and Allowances. There is no doubt that, this Report has set the framework for a vigorous debate on the issue. RMFAC has, by this memorandum, been presented with an agenda to engage justice sector stakeholders. Without prejudice to the desirability of a consultative process, it must be said that debates on this issue should be time bound. It is time to recognise the invaluable role of the Judiciary, in consolidating our democracy. Nigeria cannot, at this time of her existence, afford to carry the burden of a demoralised Judiciary. In acknowledgment of the importance of this issue, This Day Lawyer now reproduces the Report
RMFAC’s Invitation to NBA to Submit Memorandum on Remuneration Review
Introduction
1. This Memorandum sets out the findings and recommendations of the Nigerian Bar Association Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service (the Committee). The Memorandum articulates the position of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) on Judicial Salaries, Allowances and General Conditions of Service. This Memorandum is a product of a long process of consultation amongst role players in the administration of justice. There were:
(a) Consultations with members of the NBA
(b) Consultations and correspondence received from the National Judicial Council (NJC)
(c) Consultations with the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
(d) Desk review of available laws, government notices, reports from high level committees on judicial remuneration and conditions of service
(e) Desk gathering, including online search for relevant information on judicial remuneration in other jurisdictions.
(f) Interactions with selected serving and retired judicial officers
Background
2. By its Letter dated 2nd November, 2022, Reference No RMC/FEF/58/I/103, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) invited the NBA to submit a Memorandum for the review of the remuneration of public, political and judicial office holders in Nigeria. Paragraph 32(d) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) empowers the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission “to determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders, including the President, Vice President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in Sections 84 and 124 of this Constitution”.
3. Section 84(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) specifically mentions among others, the offices of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge and Judge of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Chief Judge of a State, Judge of the High Court of a State, Grand Kadi of Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, President and Judge of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State.
4. The letter from the RMFAC provided an opportunity for the NBA to further articulate and present its position on judicial remuneration. The NBA has since the return of Nigeria to democracy in 1999, actively campaigned for a holistic review of the conditions of service of judicial officers in recognition of the important role of the Judiciary in sustaining Nigeria’s democracy. This memorandum therefore, focusses exclusively on judicial remuneration.
The Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service
1.5 The Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service (the Committee) was constituted by the NBA President, to advise and make recommendations on matters concerning the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of judicial office holders. The Committee is working in furtherance of the commitment of the NBA to lead justice sector stakeholders advocacy, on the improvement in conditions of service of judicial office holders and those in retirement.
Membership of the Working Committee
Members of the Working Committee are:
Chairman: Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau OON, SAN, President, Nigerian Bar Association
Alternate Chairman: Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, Managing Partner, Legal Resources Consortium, Lagos; Former Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice, Ekiti State
Members: Professor Mamman Lawan Yusufari, SAN Faculty of Law, Bayero University, Kano
Chinonye Obiagwu SAN, Lead Counsel, Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), Lagos
Shaibu Enejoh Aruwa, SAN, Principal, S.E Aruwa & Co, Abuja
Professor Adamu Ibrahim, Faculty of Law, University of Jos
Folashade Alli, C. Arb Managing Partner, Folashade Alli & Associates, Lagos
Aisha Ado Abdullahi, Managing Partner, Green Edge Attorneys, Kano
Amaka Uzuegbu, Managing Solicitor, B.C Uzuegbu & Co. Onitsha
Mohammed Tajudeen Mohammed, ACIArb, Principal Partner, M.T Mohammed & Co, Kaduna
Anago Nnamdi, Associate Partner, Ifeanyichukwu Obiakor (SAN) & Co, Awka
Philemon Audu Daffi, Principal Partner, Peace Attorneys, Kano
Methodology for Judicial Remuneration Review
1. The Committee invited the Bar, Judiciary and Government to provide relevant data, information and views on the current state of judicial remuneration and conditions of service. The Committee gave special recognition to the Report of the Technical Committee on Judicial Remuneration (TCJR) established by the Federal Government. The Committee notes that the report was submitted in 2018. While most of the findings of TCJR are still very relevant today, the remuneration adjustments proposed cannot be said to reflect current economic realities. Indeed, if the proposals of the TCJR had been implemented in 2018, it will be due for review now.
2. Having considered the TCJR report in detail, as well as communications received from the Judiciary and NBA branches, the Committee then exercised its best judgement in analysing and balancing a basket of factors all relevant in formulating its recommendations.
Balanced Approach
3. Consistent with the methodology adopted by the TCJR in its 2018 Report, the Committee adopted a balanced approach in reviewing judicial remuneration by taking into account a basket of factors. An important consideration was the need to as far as possible harmonise the salaries and allowances of judicial officers with those of members of the National Assembly. In the opinion of the Committee, the salaries and allowances of justices of the Supreme Court and those of the Court of Appeal should not be less than those of Senators or a Members of House of Representatives. However, despite the best efforts of the Committee, it was not possible to get current, accurate and reliable computations of the salaries and allowances of members of the National Assembly at the time of concluding this Memorandum. The other basket of factors considered by the Committee are the following –
(h) the need to protect judicial independence;
(i) the current state of judicial remuneration;
(j) the responsibility, working conditions and workload of Judges;
(k) recruitment in the Judiciary;
(l) retirement benefits of Judges;
(m) benefit and allowances enjoyed by Judges;
(n) overseas remuneration arrangements.
Consultative Approach
4. An extensive process of consultation within the Judiciary, the legal profession and beyond, ensured that this memorandum has been the subject of painstaking examination and vigorous debate. The expectation is that RMFAC will accept the issues raised, and find the recommendations of the Committee worthy and deserving of careful consideration, during its deliberations on this very important matter.
Urgent Need for Speedy Review and Implementation
5. A submission of this nature cannot be viewed as the ‘final word’ from the NBA, on such an important and complex subject. The NBA is open to a robust debate and dialogue, on all parts of this memorandum. This is the NBA’s contribution to the national discussion on this issue. The NBA welcomes this consultative process undertaken by the RMFAC, and looks forward to additional opportunities for an open discussion on the subject-matter. It is also our submission that, the consultative process must be time bound. The need for urgent action leading to speedy implementation, cannot be over-emphasised. Judicial officers across Nigeria are struggling with everyday challenges, brought about by poor conditions of service. This state of affairs is not good for the administration of justice in Nigeria, the promotion of the rule of law and the sustainability of our democracy.
Justification for Review of Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service
3.1 In accordance with the methodology and rationale for review as set out above, the Committee identified the following factors to be considered for the review of judicial remuneration and conditions of service.
Judicial Independence
3.2 An independent Judiciary, is the right of every Nigerian. Judicial independence is necessary, to ensure the rule of law. The Federal Government of Nigeria has an obligation, to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary. Judicial independence means that Judges are not subjected to pressure or influence, and are free to make impartial decisions based solely on facts presented and the relevant laws.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), enshrines the independence of the Judiciary. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions, to respect and observe the independence of the Judiciary. Government also has a duty to provide adequate resources, to enable the Judiciary to properly perform its functions.
3.3 The Committee premised its consideration for judicial remuneration review on the need to uphold this principle of judicial independence, in order to maintain an independent and effective judicial system which upholds the rule of law and commands confidence within and outside Nigeria. The need to maintain an independent Judiciary of the highest integrity, is of utmost importance.
Current State of Judicial Remuneration
4. The Committee is deeply concerned that the inability of successive governments to make progress on the issue of fair and reasonable judicial salaries, has dampened the morale of the Judiciary. The Committee notes a key finding of the TCJR which stated in its 2018 report that, ‘from May 1999 to March 2011, the Federal Government has reviewed the Public servants and Political Officers salary on four (4) occasions. Specifically in May 2000, 2005, 2007 and 2011. Judicial officers have been on the same salary structure for more than Ten (10) years, whereas the salaries of the entire workforce, the Military, Intelligence and other Chief Executives in Nigeria were reviewed in 2011. This has resulted in a situation where some of the Public Office holders whose salaries prior to 2011 were below that of the Judicial Officers, now earn more than them. Presently, the major parameters for pay fixing and pay relativities, seem to have been abandoned in the consideration of the salaries of Judicial Officers. The Judicial Officer’s present salary, is evidence of a downgrade in the ranking of their job positions’.
5. The Committee observed that the TCJR, in arriving at its remuneration proposals, did not take into account the remuneration package for the Judiciary that came into effect by virtue of EAO/P/267/Vol.1/27 of 5th June, 1996. It would appear that, an older remuneration scale was used as a baseline. The subsequent computations and projections resulted in less salary than obtainable, using their extant salaries as the baseline. The implication of this is that the remuneration proposals of the TCJR, which was presumably based on RMFAC’s review placed judicial officers at a disadvantage, unlike for the other categories of public officers, whose extant salaries were used. It must be emphasised that Judicial Officers were shortchanged right at the inception of the current constitutional dispensation when RMFAC came into existence, and erroneously fixed the first salaries especially for judicial office holders.
6. Without prejudice to the observation of the Committee concerning the non-consideration EAO/P/267/Vol.1/27 of 5th June, 1996, the finding by the Federal Government appointed committee that Judicial officers have been on the same salary for more than a decade, gives the most important justification for the urgent review of judicial remuneration
Workload and Complexity of Judicial Work
7. The Committee submits that increasing workload and complexity of judicial work, is another important justification for judicial remuneration review. The Judiciary has been faced with the influx and upsurge of caseloads, especially since 1999. The Committee considered the annual reports of the heads of courts over the last decade, and found that there has been a rapid and substantial upsurge in cases in all areas of law. This has posed challenges, in terms of manpower resources and court facilities.
8. The Judiciary in these reports, pointed out that the caseload figures do not reflect fully the workload of Judges, and must not be looked at exclusively. They do not, for instance, reflect the complexity of the cases, which directly affects the amount of time and effort required of Judges to deal with the cases. It is also very difficult to devise quantifiable indicators in a meaningful way, to reflect the increasing workload and heavier responsibilities of Judges. All the above are generally true for all levels of court, but the pressure is particularly felt at the levels of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Increased complexity of cases not only means longer hearing times, but considerably more time is required for Judges to conduct pre-hearing preparation and to write judgements.
Recruitment of Judicial Officers
3.9 The ability of Nigeria’s legal system to function effectively and to deliver the kind of justice that Nigerians need and deserve, depends in large part on the quality of our Judges. The working conditions of the Judiciary, are having a detrimental effect on recruiting exceptional Judges. The Committee notes that poor working conditions of judicial officers is one of a number of factors that are currently affecting recruitment to the Bench, and is deeply concerned about the impact on the administration of justice. The recruitment of exceptionally qualified Judges and the attractiveness of the Judiciary as a career for potential applicants, are twin factors in strengthening the Judiciary. In order to achieve the goals of current interventions aimed at reforming the Judiciary, we need the best and brightest candidates coming forward for judicial appointment.
Retirement
10. Life in retirement of Judges, is an important element to be considered for the protection of judicial independence. It is generally accepted that pensions must be established by law, and be adequate and commensurate with the status, dignity and responsibilities of judicial office. Adequate provision for life in retirement, in fact, contributes to preventing Judges from seeking extra profits or favours, and better shields them from potential corrupt tendencies, practices and pressures aimed at influencing their decisions or behaviour.
11. The need for adequate provision of retirement allowances is further strengthened, when it is realised that judicial officers have a detailed code of conduct which must be strictly adhered to. For instance, it is unethical for a serving Judge to be involved in any business venture. A Judge therefore, is fully dependent on Government for sustenance. The code of conduct also regulates life after retirement. Another prominent provision in the code of conduct, is the prohibition against return to private practice. Judicial officers of the superior courts of record are prohibited by statute from legal practice, either while holding office or at any time after ceasing for any reason to hold office.
12. The Committee reviewed the current constitutional provisions on pensions, gratuities and other provisions currently available for judicial officers after retirement. In particular, the working group notes that the template for the computation of gratuity for judicial officers should be in accordance with Sections 289 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). That in line with the provisions of Sections 291(3) of the 1999 Constitution, the basis for computing terminal benefits for judicial officers should be their last annual salary and allowance.
13. Retired judicial officers, should be beneficiaries of the ongoing review exercise. All pension benefits of retired Judges shall be automatically increased, whenever there is an increase in the salary of the same position from which he/she retired.
Benefits and Allowances
14. Judges are entitled to a range of benefits and allowances, in addition to salary. The package of benefits and allowances, is an integral part of judicial remuneration. This has helped enhance the living conditions of Judges. The Committee notes the need to review the existing package of benefits and allowances currently available to judicial officers, in recognition of the peculiar demands of the judicial office. The current official allowances are inadequate, in view of the status and work schedule of a judicial officer. The Committee proposes the following additional allowances in recognition of status and work schedule of judicial officers that deserve compensation, but are not included in the official list of allowances. These are:
• Restrictive Lifestyle Allowance. This is proposed in recognition of the limitations on lifestyle of judicial officers, imposed by the Judicial Code of Conduct. A Judge’s conduct, both in and out of office, is bound to be the subject of public scrutiny and comment. Judges have to accept some restrictions on their activities. Activities that would ordinarily not have attracted attention if carried out by other members of the community, could be an issue if done by a Judge. Judicial Officers are daily challenged to strike a balance between the requirements of judicial office and the legitimate demands of the Judge’s personal life, development and family. For example, by their code of conduct, Judges who are in need of loans can only borrow money from recognised financial institutions. They are prohibited from taking friendly loans or accepting gifts, including those of a monetary nature. Furthermore, the Judicial Officer is encouraged to lead an isolated life with few friends and acquaintances. This has implications on the Judge’s support network. Additionally, it is unethical for a serving Judge to be involved in any business venture. A judge therefore is fully dependent on Government for sustenance. These limitations impose real financial burdens, not borne by other public officers.
• Dual Responsibility Allowance. This is proposed, in recognition of the peculiar burden inherent in the offices of the heads of courts. In the entire public service, once an officer is promoted, appointed, or otherwise attains a higher office, he leaves the duties of his previous office and assumes the duties of the new one. This is not applicable to the head of courts who carry along all the duties of a Judge, sitting and writing judgements, in addition to the new duties of administering the courts. This deserves recognition and compensation.
• Disruption Burden Allowance. This is proposed specially for Justices of the Court of Appeal, Federal High Court Judges and Judges of the National Industrial Court. Unlike any other public officer at their level, they are frequently transferred to all parts of the country. These frequent shuttle between States comes with a financial burden, especially in those cases where they have to relocate with members of their families. There is also the necessity and financial implications of maintaining two homes – the permanent residence and the frequently changing work residence. There is the need to recognise this work feature, and provide for appropriate compensation.
• Long Service Allowance. The Committee observed the absence of distinction in the salary arrangements between newly appointed judicial officers to the Bench of the relevant court, and those who have served several years on the Bench. For example, a Judge who was appointed in 2022 will earn the same salary and allowances as the Judge who was appointed in 1990. Without prejudice to the reasoning that judicial officers in the same court should see themselves as equal and indeed, relate to each other as such, the Committee finds merit in the proposal to distinguish long serving judicial officers from newly appointed entrants to the Bench.
• Legal Researchers Allowance. The Committee is persuaded by the several reports of the heads of courts, about the increase in the workload of judicial officers. This has practical implications, for justice delivery in Nigeria. The Committee also notes that in addition to measures currently being undertaken by the NJC on caseload management in our judicial system, it is necessary and indeed, desirable that judicial officers are in a position to hire qualified researchers to assist them in conducting research on matters before them. The idea of engaging legal researchers for Judges, is not a new one. What this allowance seeks to achieve, is to give Judges the freedom and ability to personally hire and pay suitably qualified persons, outside the bureaucracy of the Judiciary.
Overseas Remuneration Arrangements
15. The Committee notes the judicial remuneration packages in two African Countries, namely Ghana and South Africa. Comparatively, remuneration of the Nigerian Judiciary is lagging behind by far, in terms of annual remuneration including benefits and allowances.
Recommendations to the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMFAC) on the Review of the Remuneration of Judicial Office Holders
The NBA Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service, make the following recommendations for the consideration of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission:
Basic Salary
4.1 The Committee notes the finding of the TCJR that ‘Judicial officers have been on the same salary structure for more than Ten (10) years’. That was the situation in 2018, when the report was submitted. The Committee also notes that the salary review proposed by the TCJR based on the computations of RMFAC, placed the Judiciary at a disadvantage because of the non-consideration of the recent remuneration package for the Judiciary that came into effect by virtue of EAO/P/267/Vol.1/27 of 5th June, 1996. The Committee further notes the status of judicial remuneration in other African Countries (Ghana and South Africa), and its finding that Nigeria is by far lagging behind. For these reasons, and the need to achieve the recruitment of exceptionally qualified persons and ensure the attractiveness of the Judiciary as a career for potential applicants, we propose an increase of 200% across board for all judicial officers.
Allowances
2. In view of our earlier observation on the need to revisit current judicial allowances recognising that the package of benefits and allowances is an integral part of judicial remuneration, and that these can help enhance the living conditions of judicial officers, we propose the following recommendations on specific heads of allowances:
• Medical Allowance: For reasons observed above, specifically as it relates to the workload and complexity of judicial work, including its effect on the health of judicial officers, we propose 40% of the basic salary as Medical Allowance for minor ailments that do not require hospitalisation, while other medical needs including overseas medical treatment and in-patient medical treatment in local medical institutions, should be subject to necessary approvals that obtain currently.
• Rent Allowance. Presently, rent allowance is 50% of the basic salary. The Committee notes that, in view of the nature of judicial work, which among others, places a burden on judicial officers to be selective in their place of abode, and given the high cost of accommodation in highbrow areas, we propose a 100% rent allowance across board for all judicial officers.
• Leave Allowance: 10% of the basic salary is currently paid as leave allowance. This amount is however, inadequate for the purpose of the officer concerned going on a short vacation within Nigeria. We recommend an increase to 100% paid once in a year, so that it may realistically assist a Judicial Officer go on vacation within or outside Nigeria.
• Hardship Allowance: The present allowance is 50% of the basic salary for Judicial Officers. We recommend an upward review of the percentage to 100% for Judicial Officers. This is based on the findings of the Committee, on workload and complexity of judicial work.
Proposed New Allowances
The Committee proposes the following new allowances, in recognition of the peculiar demands of the judicial office that deserve compensation but are not presently included in allowances available to judicial officers:
• Restrictive Lifestyle Allowance. This is proposed in recognition of the limitations on lifestyle of judicial officers, imposed by the Judicial Code of Conduct. We propose 100% lifestyle allowance for judicial officers.
• Dual Responsibility Allowance. This is proposed in recognition of the peculiar burden inherent in the offices of the heads of courts. We propose 20% Dual Responsibility allowance, for all heads of court
• Disruptive Burden Allowance. This is proposed specially for Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court in view of the frequency of their transfers, including to mitigate the financial burden of maintaining two homes. The permanent residence, and the frequently changing work residence. We propose 50% Disruptive Burden Allowance, for the said judicial officers. There is the need to recognise this work feature, and provide for appropriate compensation.
• Long Service Allowance. This is proposed, in recognition of the unfairness of newly appointed judicial officers earning the same salary and allowances with serving judicial officers. We propose 10% monthly Long Service Allowance, payable to judicial officers who have served on the Bench for a minimum of 5 years.
• Legal Researchers Allowance. This is proposed in appreciation of the increasing workload of judicial officers, specifically with a view to achieving the delivery of well researched decisions. We propose 70% monthly legal research allowance for Justices of the Supreme Court, Justices of the Court of Appeal and heads of courts.
Delink Judicial Remuneration from Public Sector Pay
3. The Committee notes that historically, there has always been an informal linkage between judicial salaries and senior civil service salaries. The Committee firmly believes that there is the need to delink judicial remuneration, from that of the civil service. Delinking judicial remuneration from that of the civil service will not only strengthen the perception of judicial independence, but will also provide the necessary safeguard and reassurance to Judges.
4. This recommendation has also taken into account, certain aspects that render it inappropriate for a direct comparison between the Judiciary and the civil service. For example, Judges do not have the consultative process on annual pay adjustment, which the Government has established with the civil service unions and staff associations.
A New Judicial Salary Pay Scale
5. In recognition of the independence and uniqueness of the Judiciary, the Committee further recommends that Judges should be remunerated according to an independent salary scale to be known as the Judicial Service Pay Scale (JSPS). This will further enable judicial salaries to be subject to regular reviews, that are distinct from that carried out in respect of the civil service.
Separate Legislative Scheme for Judicial Officers
6. Furthermore, the Committee adopts in its entirety, the recommendation of the TCJR for a separate legislative scheme for salaries, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits for judicial officers. TCJR proposed a ‘Judicial Office Holders Entitlements Bill, to create a Judicial Office Holders Entitlements Panel to replace the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission as it relates to the Judiciary.
Highlights of the Recommendations of the NBA Working Committee on Judicial Remuneration and Conditions of Service to the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission
• Basic Salary: The Committee proposed 200% increase across the board for all judicial office holders.
• Medical Allowance: The Committee proposed 40% of the basic salary of all judicial office holders as Medical Allowance for minor ailments that do not require hospitalisation, while other medical needs including overseas medical treatment and in-patient medical treatment in local medical institutions should be subject to necessary approvals that obtain currently.
• Rent Allowance. The Committee proposed 100% rent allowance for all Judicial Officers.
• Leave Allowance: The Committee proposed 100% leave allowance paid once in a year, so that it may realistically assist a Judicial Officer go on vacation within or outside Nigeria.
• Hardship Allowance: The Committee proposed an upward review of 100% for Judicial Officers. This is based on the findings of the Committee, on workload and complexity of judicial work.
Proposed New Allowances
The Committee proposed the following new allowances, in recognition of the peculiar demands of the judicial office that deserve compensation, but are not presently included in allowances available to judicial officers:
• Restrictive Lifestyle Allowance. The Committee proposed 100% lifestyle allowance for all judicial office holders, in recognition of the limitations on lifestyle of judicial officers imposed by the Judicial Code of Conduct.
• Dual Responsibility Allowance. The Committee proposed a 20% Dual Responsibility allowance for all heads of court, in recognition of the peculiar burden inherent in the offices of the heads of courts.
• Disruptive Burden Allowance. The Committee proposed 50% Disruptive Burden Allowance for Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court, in view of the frequency of their transfers including to mitigate the financial burden of maintaining two homes.
• Long Service Allowance. The Committee proposed a 10% Long Service Allowance payable monthly to judicial officers who have served on the Bench for a minimum of 5 years.
• Legal Researchers Allowance. The Committee proposed a 70% monthly legal research allowance for all heads of courts, Justices of the Supreme Court and Justices of the Court of Appeal.
Other Recommendations
•The Committee recommends delinking judicial remuneration from that of the civil service.
•The Committee recommends an independent new Judicial Salary Pay Scale to be known as the Judicial Service Pay Scale (JSPS), to enable judicial salaries to be subject to regular reviews that are distinct from that carried out in respect of the civil service.
•The Committee recommends a separate legislative scheme for salaries, allowances, conditions of service and retirement benefits for judicial officers.
•The Committee proposed a ‘Judicial Office Holders Entitlements Bill’ to create a Judicial Office Holders Entitlements Panel, to replace the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission as it relates to the Judiciary. This will also require constitutional amendment.
