The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has strongly criticized the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) for celebrating the commissioning of residential quarters for judges, describing the move as inappropriate, unethical, and harmful to public confidence in the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary.

In a statement released, the party argued that while judges are entitled to decent housing, security, and welfare, such provisions should never be portrayed as personal achievements or acts of generosity by political officeholders.

According to the ADC, the construction of accommodation for judicial officers is a constitutional responsibility of government and is funded by taxpayers. As such, neither President Bola Tinubu nor the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, should receive personal acclaim for executing obligations that fall within the remit of government.

“The issue is not the construction of the quarters itself,” the party stated. “The concern is the dangerous impression created when the Executive arm of government presents itself as the benefactor of another constitutionally independent arm.”

The ADC contended that the APC’s praise of President Tinubu and Minister Wike for delivering housing for judges creates the perception that judicial welfare depends on executive goodwill rather than constitutional entitlement. Such a perception, the party argued, risks weakening the principle of separation of powers that underpins democratic governance.

The party warned that in every constitutional democracy, the judiciary must remain institutionally independent and should never appear indebted to political actors whose actions and interests may ultimately come before the courts for adjudication.

Particularly troubling, according to the ADC, is what it described as the APC’s attempt to portray President Tinubu and Minister Wike as patrons of the judiciary. The party argued that such political messaging sends the wrong signal to Nigerians and raises legitimate concerns about the boundaries between the executive and judicial branches of government.

The ADC further noted that concerns about judicial independence are heightened by existing public perceptions that influential political figures already wield considerable influence within the judicial system. In that context, the party said, public celebration of executive officials for providing welfare infrastructure to judges only reinforces such suspicions.

The party also dismissed the APC’s characterization of the housing project as a contribution to strengthening judicial independence. It described the argument as contradictory, insisting that judicial independence is not measured by the number of buildings commissioned by politicians but by the existence of institutional autonomy, financial independence, security of tenure, freedom from political interference, and public confidence in the impartiality of the courts.

The ADC emphasized that in a political environment where courts routinely adjudicate election petitions, constitutional disputes, and cases involving powerful public officials, political leaders should exercise restraint and avoid actions that could be interpreted as seeking judicial gratitude.

Rather than allowing the project to stand as a routine fulfillment of government obligations, the party accused the APC of transforming a public institution into a partisan public relations exercise, thereby undermining the perception of neutrality that is essential to the judiciary’s credibility.

The ADC concluded by describing the celebration surrounding the project as “a shameless assault on the spirit of separation of powers” and an affront to the constitutional ideal of an independent judiciary. It maintained that public institutions should never be converted into symbols of political patronage or instruments for cultivating loyalty from constitutionally independent arms of government.