- The apex court explanation is contained in a 62-page Certified True Copy, CTC, of its judgment on the ongoing political crisis in the oil-rich southern state
Nigeria’s Supreme Court has explained and thrown more light on its judgement that reinstated the leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly under Martin Amaewhule.
The apex court explanation is contained in a 62-page Certified True Copy, CTC, of its judgment on the ongoing political crisis in the oil-rich southern state.
In the CTC sighted by within Nigeria on Friday , the Supreme Court stated claims that 27 members of the House of Assembly had defected from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC, were not substantiated.
The judgment, signed by Justice Emmanuel Agim, also revealed that the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, who had levelled the allegations of defection against the 27 lawmakers, later withdrew the allegations on his own accord at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Due to his inability to corroborate the defection claims against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the Supreme Court held that, in the eyes of the law, no defection took place, and consequently, the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.
The judgment specifically stated that there cannot be a House of Assembly except as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution. He added that the Constitution neither envisaged nor supported Governor Fubara’s position of recognising only four members as the legitimate House of Assembly.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an aberration for Governor Fubara to make any requests, nominations, or presentations to the Rivers State House of Assembly unless they were directed to the leadership under Hon. Martin Amaewhule, who is believed to be loyal to the faction of former Governor Nyesom Wike.
The judgment stated: “What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8th respondent (Fubara) initiated the prevention of sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly, constituted by the number of members as prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution, long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose.
“The said activities of the 8th respondent (Fubara) were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started.
“Against the background of these concurrent findings and holdings in the Court of Appeal judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024, it is reasonable to conclude that the cross-appellant’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity is intended to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution, and legitimate government in Rivers State.
“Having, by his own admission, engaged in a series of illegal activities aimed at preventing the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from participating in the House’s proceedings and carrying out their legitimate legislative duties, his resort to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution, and democratic government in Rivers State.
“The 8th respondent (Fubara) had effectively collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat due to defection can validly arise. There must be a functioning House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place.
“The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery.
“Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise. Section 102 of the Constitution, which provides that ‘A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings,’ cannot be relied upon to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of over 90% of its members. Neither can it justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of members, nor justify the contrived illegal exclusion of 27 members and officials from the House, the illegal shutting down of the House, the destruction of the legislative building, or the blocking of access to the House by legislators and officials.
“A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that constitute a state government under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Executive arm has chosen to collapse the Legislature, allowing the Governor to rule without legislative oversight, effectively as a despot. As it stands, there is no functioning government in Rivers State.
“The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be used to justify or protect the illegal actions of the 8th respondent and his despotic rule over Rivers State.
“It applies only to genuine situations that were not contemplated by the Constitution or any law, where extraordinary but legitimate actions are required to protect the public interest.
“The 8th respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House of Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the Legislature, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State, and the rule of law.
“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person. What the 8th respondent has done is to destroy the government due to his fear of being impeached.
“In light of the foregoing, I hold that Cross-Appeal No. SC/CV/1175A/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
“The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed. The said judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.
“For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments, and officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is enacted by the Rivers State House of Assembly, constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.
“The Rt. Honourable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume sitting, unhindered, as Speaker and members, respectively, of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”
Discussion about this post