The Rivers state caucus in the House of Representatives has opposed the stance of Speaker Martins Amaewhule and some National Assembly lawmakers from the state regarding the implications of the Supreme Court ruling on the judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court.
The caucus accused the lawmakers who recently paid a solidarity visit to Amaewhule in Port Harcourt of misrepresenting the facts about Omotosho’s judgment and spreading falsehood.
Speaking in Port Harcourt on Monday, the group, led by Awaji-Inombek Dagomie Abiante, condemned the visit, alleging that those involved were attempting to mislead the public.
According to the lawmakers, the judgment by Justice Omotosho did not address the status of Amaewhule and the 27 lawmakers.
They insisted that Amaewhule and 26 others lost their seats due to their voluntary defections, which occurred in full public view on December 11, 2023.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the caucus emphasized that under Section 109(1)(g) and Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, any lawmaker who defects to another party automatically forfeits their seat.
They maintained that the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the matter remain binding and have not been overturned in any subsequent rulings.
Read Also: Gender mainstreaming key to reducing civilian casualty during conflict, says NDC commandant
The caucus said: “The legal effect of these provisions and the Supreme Court judgments is that, as of 11th December, 2023 when Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule read out the letters of defection of himself and 26 others on the floor of the Rivers State House of Assembly, they lost their seats and automatically and mandatorily became former members of the House.
“The only legal implication of the above is that, Hon Martins Amaewhule and his group of 27, remain former members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and accordingly are no longer entitled to parade themselves as members of the House or to partake in any business or affair of the House.
“It is worthy to note that neither the fact of their defection nor any issue relating to their defection nor on their status as former lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly was raised, submitted or discussed in the proceedings leading to the 22 January 2024 judgment of Hon Justice Omotosho.
The lawmakers accused Amaewhule and others of hiding the truth about their defection to Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court.
They said: “Another material fact is whether the Oko-Jumbo led lawmakers can carry on with businesses of the House after the others automatically and mandatorily lost their seats by virtue of their voluntary defection.
“This issue was not raised nor discussed in the Hon Justice Omotosho judgment which is thus inapplicable in the circumstance. However, the rule that applies in the circumstance has long been laid down by His Lordship, the Hon Justice Walter Onnoghen, JSC as he then was while delivering the lead judgment in the Supreme Court case of Dapianlong v Dariye.
They quoted Onnoghen as saying: “There is no doubt that there existed in the Plateau State House of Assembly 14 vacant seats as a result of cross carpeting. It is my view that until the vacancies created by the carpet crossing members are filled by the process of by-election, the Plateau State House of Assembly can only transact such legislative duties that require the participation of less than 2/3 majority of all the members of that House, which duties definitely excludes impeachment proceedings.”
On their colleagues that came to sympathise with Amaewhule, they said none of the reliefs they claimed were part of Justice Omotosho’s judgement touched on two material issues of defections and whether the remaining minority lawmakers could carry on with businesses of the House.
They lawmakers said: “The misleading overtures of Amaewhule and his group cannot make the judgment of Hon Justice Omotosho to become relevant to issues not decided in the case. Hon Martins Amaewhule and his co-travellers appear to have lost sight of the trite position of the law, that a case is an authority only for what it decides.
“The judgment of Hon Justice Omotosho is an authority and relevant only for what it decided. The law is that judgment must always be read in the light of the facts on which the case was decided, and must not be stretched beyond the facts presented before that Court.
“As one who has sworn to defend the Rule of law, the Governor of Rivers State, His Excellency Sir Siminalayi Fubara will continue to uphold the Nigerian Constitution and the Rule of Law in Rivers State. The Governor has never disrespected and will never disrespect the Court of law.
“We therefore call on the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu, the National Judicial Council, the Chief Justice of the Federation, the Inspector General of Police, all institutions in Nigeria, as well as well-meaning Nigerians to ignore the mischievous and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and the effect of the judgment of Hon Justice Omotosho on the situation in Rivers State by Hon Amaewhule and co”.
On February 17, the Rivers state caucus of the National Assembly paid a solidarity visit Amaewhule and called on Governor Fubara to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court saying the ruling affirmed Amaewhule and 27 lawmakers as the only Rivers State House of Assembly.
Their position on the Supreme Court’s judgement and interpretations that followed the ruling was contained in document signed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Kingsley Chinda, Sen. Barinada Mpigi, and Dumnamene Dekor.
The lawmakers, who were accompanied by others including former legislators expressed concerns over what they described as deliberate distortion of facts and judgments of courts by the Governor of Rivers State.
Describing persons spearheading the narratives as content creators and political merchants, the lawmakers said their objective was to disobey the court and mislead the public.
The caucus explained that the judgment of Justice J.K. Omotosho, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, should take effect immediately and forever.
Contrary to the earlier narratives, they said the House of Assembly sought other reliefs beyond the 2024 Budget.
They reproduced a copy of the judgement saying that the Court of Appeal judgment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, granted all the reliefs sought by Amaewhule, including the real identities of the speaker and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
They said part of the reliefs granted by the judgement was non-interference by the governor of Rivers State with the activities and functions of the Amaewhule-led Assembly; protection of Amaewhule and other members of the House by the Inspector-General of Police to ensure adequate security for them to carry out their duties, and the disbandment of any other House of Assembly in Rivers State or self-acclaimed Speaker other than Amaewhule and the 27 members.
They warned that any attempt to deal with any other person or forum as the Rivers State House of Assembly was contemptuous of the judgment of the Supreme Court and an invitation to anarchy.
