Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has threatened to challenge the Federal Government in court over the allocation of newly built luxury houses to judges in Abuja’s Katampe district, describing the gesture as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Speaking in a video shared on Thursday, Falana criticised the Federal Government for providing exclusive housing benefits to judges while other categories of public servants were excluded.
He questioned the legal basis for the housing allocation, arguing that the government must uphold the constitutional principle of equality.
According to Falana, although judges are entitled to decent accommodation to enable them to perform their duties effectively and securely, similar consideration should be extended to other public servants.
He warned that the policy could soon be challenged in court, insisting that government benefits should not be reserved for one class of public officials.
Falana cited university lecturers as an example, noting that professors play critical roles in national development but are poorly remunerated and increasingly lack access to staff housing.
He also criticised the benefits enjoyed by former governors now serving in the National Assembly, alleging that many continue to receive legislative salaries and allowances while retaining housing entitlements both in their states and in Abuja.
According to him, the situation contrasts sharply with the experience of career civil servants who retire after decades of service without similar benefits.
Falana maintained that equality before the law must be respected in the allocation of public resources and welfare packages.
The housing project is part of an initiative by the Federal Capital Territory Administration to construct 40 residential units for judges in Katampe, Abuja. The houses are expected to be allocated on an owner-occupier basis, subject to presidential approval.
The project has also attracted criticism from some quarters, with opponents arguing that the allocation of the houses could be perceived as compromising judicial independence.
Post comments (0)