The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses PDP case against Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy

    BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses PDP case against Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy

    The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the last governorship election in Ondo State, Agboola Ajayi challenging the competence of the joint ticket of Lucky Aitedatiwa and his running mate in the election, Olayide Adelami.

    In a judgment on Tuesday, a five-member panel, presided over by Justice Mohammed Garba, was unanimous in holding that the appeal was without merit and that the appellants lacked the locus standi to query Adelami’s nomination.

    Read Also: Supreme Court reserves judgment in case to determine PDP’s authentic National Secretary

    The court awarded a cost of N8million against the PDP and Ajayi, at N2m each for the four respondents – Adelami, Aitedatiwa, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The PDP and Ajayi had claimed that Adelami presented forged West African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate to INEC and that he equally possessed multiple identities.

    They had prayed the court hold that Adelami was not qualified to contest the election by virtue of the alleged forged certificate and proceed to void the joint ticket on which Aitedatiwa and Adelami contested the election on the platform of the APC.

    Details shortly…

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    ANALYSIS

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Dettol Cool brings freshness to fitness enthusiasts, communities across Nigeria

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

       According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of 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 just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 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 court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a 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 an 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. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Odili’s probe: Supreme Court dismisses Rivers’ case against EFCC

    Odili’s probe: Supreme Court dismisses Rivers’ case against EFCC

    The Supreme Court has dismissed two appeals by the Attorney General of Rivers State and the Speaker of the state’s Assembly seeking to set aside the leave granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to challenge an order prohibiting the investigation of the tenure of Peter Odili as governor of the state.

    Odili had, in 2007, obtained a perpetual injunction from a Federal High Court in Port-Harcourt (Rivers State capital) restraining the EFCC from investigating or arresting him

    The court order also restrained the anti-graft agency from probing the finances of the Rivers State Government.

    The EFCC later applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the Federal High Court’s decision out of time, an application the appellate court granted, a decision the AG, Rivers, and the Speaker appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Read Also: I won’t apologise to Odili, Wike vows

    On Monday, when the appeal filed by the AG, Rivers, marked: SC/CV/318/2018 was called, Justice John Okoro, who presided over a five-member panel, sought to know the substance of the case.

    Appellant’s lawyer, S. A. Somiari (SAN), explained that it was an interlocutory appeal against the leave granted by the Court of Appeal for the EFCC to appeal the 2007 orders issued by the Federal High Court.

    While Somiari was still struggling to highlight the relevance of the appeal, Justice Okoro interjected and told him that “this is not the typo of appeal we hear here.”

    Justice Okoro asked Somiari and other parties in the case to return to the Court of Appeal to have the substantive appeal heard before coming to the Supreme Court.

    Realising the court’s disposition to his case, Somiari subsequently applied to withdraw the appeal, which application was not opposed by the EFCC, Abubakar Mahmud, who led Sylvanus Tahir (SAN) and B. O. Obialo, who appeared for the other respondents.

    Ruling, Justice Okoro said: “Appeal is dismissed, having been withdrawn without any objection.”

    Similar treatment was accorded to the appeal marked SC/CV/447/2018 by the Speaker of Rivers State House of Assembly.

  • JUST IN: Supreme Court reserves judgment in PDP national secretary dispute

    JUST IN: Supreme Court reserves judgment in PDP national secretary dispute

    …dismisses motion for stay of execution

    The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by Senator Samuel Anyanwu over the leadership tussle between him and Sunday Ude-Okoye for the position of National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Presiding over a five-member panel, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji stated that the judgment date would be communicated to the parties once it is ready.

    The decision was announced on Monday after the court heard final arguments from lawyers representing both sides. 

    Anyanwu’s appeal challenges an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal in Enugu, which removed him as PDP’s national secretary following his resignation to contest the Imo state governorship election.

    The Court of Appeal, in its judgment recognised Ude Okoye as the party’s national secretary and proceeded to issue an order directing Ude Okoye to immediately act as national secretary of the PDP.

    At Monday’s proceedings, Anyanwu’s lawyer, Ken Njemanze (SAN) withdrew the motion for stay of execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal pending the determination of the substantive appeal.

    Njemanze withdrew the motion upon being told by Justice Abba-Aji that it was not court’s transition to grant stay of execution of judgments.

    She said since the appeal was ripe for hearing and the court was ready to hear it, there was no need dissipating energy on the motion for stay.

    When Njemanze applied to withdraw the motion, lawyer to Aniagu Emmanuel (the respondent), Paul Erokoro (SAN) did not object, following which the court dismissed it.

    Read Also: Supreme Court judgment: Ex-LG chairmen flay threats to unleash violence in Rivers

    Njemanze proceeded to make his final submissions after adopting the appellant’s written briefs.

    Njemanze urged the court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court, removing him from office .

    The appellant’s lawyer noted that his client took permission from the party’s leadership to contest the governorship election in Imo State, arguing that he could not lawfully be removed from office when his tenure has not expired.

    In his submission, Erokoro argued that the reliefs being sought by Anyanwu violated the Constitution of the PDP.

    He contended that having resigned as the National Secretary to contest election, Anyanwu could not be allowed to return to the same office.

    PDP and Ambassador Illiya Damagun who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the appeal did not file any document for or against Anyanwu’s appeal.

    The fourth respondent, Ali Odeifa opposed the appeal.

    Odeifa who was represented by lawyer Okwudili Anozie urged the apex court to dismiss appeal for being frivolous and packing in merit.

  • Supreme Court judgment: Ex-LG chairmen flay threats to unleash violence in Rivers

    Supreme Court judgment: Ex-LG chairmen flay threats to unleash violence in Rivers

    …urge security agencies to enforce judgement

    Former executive chairmen of Ijaw-dominated local government areas in Rivers State have condemned threats by non-state actors to unleash violence if there is any attempt to impeach Governor Siminalayi Fubara following the Supreme Court’s judgment.

    The former campaign coordinators for Fubara in their respective local government areas called on security agencies, including the police and the Department of State Security (DSS), to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Members of the Association of Local Government Nigeria (ALGON) criticized Fubara for failing to embrace the resolution proposed through the Presidential intervention to end the crisis.

    The Ijaw leaders, who maintain that they are still the substantive chairmen of their local government areas following the aborted tenure extension, expressed relief that the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the matter, signaling an end to the crisis.

    But they said: “Unfortunately, our attention was drawn to both subtle and frontal threats to the Government, instigated by some individuals and organisations, who ostensibly are beneficiaries of the crises.

    “It’s even worse that they use the Ijaw identity to fuel the embers of violence and intimidation of the Federal Government. In this category, are organisations such as the Ijaw National Congress and some renegades of the Ijaw Youth Council.

    “As a matter of fact, these organizations stated publicly that the Ijaws will resort to violence against critical national oil Infrastructure if Governor Fubara is impeached. This implies that this pro-ijaw ethnic organizations have not read the Supreme Court Judgement they so condemn”.

    Those, who endorsed the position are Daniel O. Daniel, Abua/Odual; Dr Rowland C. Sekibo, Akuku Toru; Dr Erastus C. Awortu, Andoni; Onengiye George, Asari Toru; Michael John Williams, Degema; Chief Vincent Nemioboka, Ogu Bolo; Akuro Tobin, Okrika; Tamunotonye Douglas, Vice-Chairman Port Harcourt City and Ubile Jack, Vice-Chairman Ahoada West.

    Read Also: Benue women protest killings of farmers, demand government intervention

    They said: “We stringently condemn those empty threats and urge the Federal Government and Nigerians to disregard such comments which project the Ijaws in a bad light. Moreso, it is a fact that these threats attack the sensitivity of people from other ethnic groups in Rivers State who also voted for Gov Siminalayi Fubara.

    “We have also seen videos and press statements of supposed stakeholders including Prof. Benjamin Okaba, Alhaji Mujaheed Asari Dokubo threaten the energy security of the Nigerian State, if attempts at implementation of the Judgement leads to the impeachment of the Governor”.

    Why flaying the threats and outbursts, the Ijaw leaders queried: “Did the Judgement call for impeachment of the Governor? The simple answer is no. Where were these persons who claim to be fighting the so-called Ijaw-fight, when the Governor truncated the tenure and seized the allocation of the LGA’s including those of us who are fellow Ijaws?

    “Where were they when he stopped the salaries of the Assembly members and even made conscious attempts to use the courts to impeach them Including 10 Ijaw sons? They were all unconcerned because they were benefitting from the crisis and are not ready to stop benefitting from it”.

    They said the Supreme Court’s judgement invalidated the LGA elections for procedural irregularities, recognized the Rivers State House of Assembly and its speaker to ensure legislative certainty and ordered the Governor to respect enshrined constitutional provisions and wondered the basis for the threats.

    They said: “It should be recalled that Rivers State is a heterogenous state with people from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We frown at the regular use of our ethnic identity to threaten the rest of our country men because of the vast natural resources that are domicile in the region.

    “We want to assure Nigerians that we shall mobilize our massive support base to protect oil installation situate in our respective communities. We call on Governor Fubara to obey and ensure the full compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

    “As everybody is aware, impeachment is a profound constitutional prescription to penalize any erring Governor or President in a presidential system of Government. The Ijaws should at this point in time ensure that their beloved son Gov Fubara does not carry out any act that will necessitate the deployment of this constitutionally approved procedure to check his excesses.

    “To ensure the speedy implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement, we call on the Police, the DSS, the Military, and all other security agencies who have stake in the defence of the Nation and its mandate, to spread their tentacles in ensuring prompt and peaceful implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement”.

  • Supreme Court and Fubara V. Wike

    Supreme Court and Fubara V. Wike

    As far as the legal aspect of the political discord in Rivers State is concerned, the Supreme Court on February 28 closed the chapter with a hint of exasperation. Whether it concerns the status of the Martins Amaewhule-led House of Assembly or the tangential but nevertheless consequential issue of the validity of the October 5, 2024 local government election, Governor Siminalayi Fubara has been left flummoxed. Even though Nigerians were divided along two main partisan lines on the Rivers crisis, and took their likes and dislikes, and logic and illogic, from each side of the divide, last Friday’s Supreme Court judgement was nevertheless anticipated and unavoidable. The governor, every astute reporter and columnist knew, had no chance at all of winning. The court’s conclusion was that Speaker Amaewhule and his 26 lawmakers defected by word of mouth, it seemed, not in the eyes of the law; and a hurting and uncalculating Mr Fubara had rushed the local government election in order to seize the high ground from his nemesis and former mentor, Nyesom Wike. To lose abominably in one of the two major arguments that became the fulcrum of the state’s politics since Mr Fubara fell out with his predecessor and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister is unsettling. To lose in both arguments is unmitigated disaster. But to the governor, political arguments are neither won nor lost by half measures. He thus managed to lose on both sides, and did it spectacularly and, as the court reasoned, unequivocally.

    There is still a solitary and obviously dismal case at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt involving the status of the 27 lawmakers filed by the Fubara camp. Until the Supreme Court broke the camel’s back on February 28, the governor reposed some hope in the Port Harcourt court to judge the matter in his favour. Now, even that hope is forlorn. The Federal High Court in question had deferred the case of the alleged defection of the lawmakers when it was brought to its notice that the Supreme Court might be making a pronouncement on the same issue. To expect the lower court to decide the same case with a different outcome is to stretch hope to its inelastic limit. All doors are now shut against Mr Fubara whom adverse situation evidently compels to change tack and produce the highest degree of ingenuity, patience, and tactics. He never seemed capable of demonstrating any of those virtues, and seemed to play scorched-earth politics that harks back to a medieval era. But today he must find those virtues and embrace them if he is not to perish politically. He needs help from some of the country’s best counsellors, but he seems to rely only on his instincts, instincts that have propelled and then betrayed him from one crisis to another, and from one blunder to another. An example of his instinctive approach to politics, especially when dealing with an enemy as implacable as Mr Wike, was his nudging of the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) to hold LG election on August 9 even before he and his team had read and digested the judgement.

    Read Also: Nigeria earned N13.78tr from crude oil in Q4 2024

    The Wike-Amaewhule camp has not displayed inspiring political astuteness of any kind, but it has, perhaps undeservingly, enjoyed the most clement of political weathers. He and his loyal 26 lawmakers announced their defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) quite alright, but the governor’s impatience and tactlessness caused them to retrace their steps before they gave legal or constitutional effect to their blunder. By ordering another LG election for August even before he has had the opportunity to study the Supreme Court judgement and reflect on its import, it is clear that Mr Fubara is either reluctant to or incapable of changing tack. He seems bent on self-destruction. Though he matches the Wike camp in displaying triumphalism over the most tentative of political victories, he has not enjoyed any lasting and soothing relief of any kind, either through political solutions moderated by President Bola Tinubu or judicial mediation orchestrated by the courts. To halt the dangerous pirouette of serial failures and fragile victories in which he seems locked, the governor needs a team of uncommon and inspired advisers to help him at least checkmate the rampaging Wike army. Yet, achieving victory after so many failed attacks against the opposing camp appears quite farfetched; the best he can do is achieve a stalemate. But even that stalemate now seems endangered by his unreflective statements and frantic measures.

    Rivers State needs to move forward beyond the tit for tat that typifies the Fubara and Wike relationship. In the giddy early months of the Fubara revolt, before the courts put paid to their clumsy manoeuvres, the state’s elders unfortunately pitched their tents with such mercantilist gusto and total lack of circumspection that they became an embarrassment to the peace process. Their challenge in Rivers, going forward, is how to find the men and philosophy to achieve some kind of peace at least in the interim on a scale that allows for some tranquility and development. They do not have those kind of men, nor the arcane philosophy capable of penetrating their ignorance. For all his posturing, Mr Wike remains angry, impulsive and self-righteous to the point that no advice can seem to get through to him. He festoons his politics with religion, in the same egregious manner like Mr Fubara does; but it is doubtful whether God sides with individuals so mean-spirited and so unrelenting. Indeed, Mr Wike has never accepted responsibility for foisting an unprepared and unqualified successor, and he has carried on as if the governor is entirely to blame for the chaos enveloping the state.

    Mr Fubara has tried unsuccessfully to frame the conflict in the state as one between a forward-looking new governor and an exhausted godfather who stifles and overwhelms his successor, and won’t let him breathe. No, the conflict is a little bit more nuanced than that. It is about two men who can’t seem to find the wisdom and the nobility to navigate through their mistakes and their grandstanding. There is in fact no determining the precedence between the governor’s childish political insurgency and the ignoble and sometimes classless responses of the former governor. One throws tantrums, the other whines in hyperbole. The Supreme Court judgement of two Fridays ago provides an opportunity for the two men to reflect on their fumbles, assuming that Mr Wike and his men can be less triumphal, and Mr Fubara can restrain himself from digging deeper into the quagmire. So far, nothing suggests both men have the capacity or the altruism to take advantage of the court judgement to forge a new beginning for the state they hypocritically claim to love.

    Hon. Amaewhule has been a competent, principled and reliable fighter, and an intelligent person to boot; but he stunned everyone last week when he gave the governor an ill-considered 48-hour ultimatum to represent the state’s 2025 budget. Did he expect the governor to base his decisions on newspaper reports of the court case? Mr Wike needs to prevail on the 27 victorious lawmakers to moderate their stand and approach the smouldering crisis with some class and nobility. But if the former governor cannot find the maturity to douse his own fiery and sanctimonious approach to politics, how can he be trusted to give leadership to the House of Assembly? Nor does it even make sense to expect him to give the lawmakers leadership. In fact, he has no constitutional elbow room to give any kind of leadership to the House of Assembly. He has since late 2023 been obtruding and irreverent, when he should be subtle and magisterial. Whether they have what it takes or not, Mr Wike and his men should go and look for what it takes to manage a state from wherever they can find the subtlety. The country is tired of their self-righteousness, their unending and brutal political and legal battles, and their vexatious impeachment threats. No wonder the Fubara camp has begun another round of foolish litigations to buy time.

    As for the unprepossessing governor, who seems even far more flawed than his enemies, and whose mind continuously seethes with practically every wrong motive, it is time to calm down and use his head instead of his disquieted mind. He has not surrounded himself with the right men, not to say wise elders with requisite experience, and he has shown no inclination to listen to the voice of reason. He has spoken silly threats about ‘giving instructions to youths awaiting his message’, some of whom have already threatened to blow up crude oil pipelines on his behalf. And he gets the naïve impression that those egging him on to more revolt well after the court processes have all but ended are the real patriots. This is incomparable nonsense. If he is wise, he should recognise the face of defeat. More, he must also recognise that it is time to make peace, no matter how tenuous, and palliate his arch enemies no matter how unappeasable. If he cannot get a second term, let him at least try to have a memorable one term.

  • Supreme Court: no evidence 27 Rivers lawmakers defected

    Supreme Court: no evidence 27 Rivers lawmakers defected

    • The Nation obtains CTC of judgment
    • Rivers people, Fubara backing Tinubu, says Sekibo

    There is no evidence that the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Supreme Court has held.

    It found that Governor Siminalayi Fubara, who raised the allegation of defection, withdrew it when he retrieved all the documents he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The Supreme Court held that by failing to support his claim of defection with evidence, in the eyes of the law, no defection took place and consequently the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.

    Fubara had explained that he withdrew the processes after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brokered peace.

    He insisted that the other parties did not withdraw theirs.

    The Apex Court slammed the governor for behaving like a despot by demolishing the House of Assembly complex and preventing the 27 lawmakers from sitting.

    It said Fubara destroyed the government of Rivers State over his fear of impeachment

    These are contained in Friday’s Apex Court judgment on the Rivers crisis. The Certified True Copy (CTC) was obtained by The Nation yesterday.

    “In this case, the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot.

    “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State,” the Supreme Court held.

    In the 62-page lead judgment read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, a clearer picture was painted as to why the justices affirmed Martin Amaewhule as the authentic Speaker.

    The court held that the Constitution did not support Fubara’s recognition of four members as the authentic House of Assembly.

    It said: “What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8th respondent (Fubara) started the prevention of the 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/AB)/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 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 just to prevent the other 27 members from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, 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.

    Read Also: Oniba hails Supreme Court for freeing Major on manslaughter charges

    “The eighth respondent (Fubara) had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    “Therefore no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise.

    “There must be a 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 an 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.”

    According to the Supreme Court, a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make it up.

    It added: “In this case, the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is, there is no 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 invoked to justify and protect the illegal actions of the eighth respondent and his despotic rule of Rivers State without a House of Assembly.

    “It applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which situations require the taking of some legitimate extra-constitutional or extra-legal actions to protect the public interest.

    “The eighth respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the House of Assembly, 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 eighth respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.

    “The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed.

    “The said judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/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 made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.

    “The Rt Honorable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting 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,” the court said.

    Fubara convinced us to support Tinubu, says Sekibo

    Yesterday in Port Harcourt, a former Minister of Transport, Senator Abiye Sekibo, said he and other leaders abandoned former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to support President Bola Ahmed Tinubu because of Fubara.

    Sekibo, known as a strong supporter of the former vice president and PDP presidential candidate in the 2023 election, stunned his audience in Port Harcourt when he said Fubara was able to convince them to leave Atiku for Tinubu.

    Speaking as a special guest of honour before inaugurating the Borokiri Fire Service Station in Port Harcourt City Local Government rehabilitated by Fubara, Sekibo appealed to President Tinubu not to listen to persons telling him that the Rivers Governor was surrounded by Atiku’s loyalists.

    Sending his message to President Tinubu, he said: “Mr President, our own President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, lend me your ears. We, the Rivers people, have always supported the government at the centre. We have always worked with the government at the centre.

    “This governor, Siminalayi Fubara, has convinced Rivers people that they must stand with their President and we do stand with you.

    “There might be persons telling you stories, especially when they see people like me, who were core Atiku men, they will say: ‘Don’t you see it is Atiku people that are with the governor’.

    “There are also Atiku people that are with them there in Abuja. But the governor has convinced us that the place to be is to be with our President and Mr. President we stand with you. We stand with you because that is the right thing to do.

    “The elections delivered you as our President and so we stand with you. The elections delivered this governor, our son, for the first time in 24 years.

    “The Ijaw nation which is more than eight local government areas of Rivers State have an opportunity of having one of their own as the governor of this state. We stand with him, we have no choice.”

    Abiye said Fubara through his work in Rivers has shown that he prioritises the interest of the people and the unity of the country.

    He said at a time when the state’s funds were seized, he made sure that there was no problem in Rivers, kept essential services active and worked tirelessly to avoid creating any problem for the federal government.

    He called on President Tinubu to support the governor, describing Fubara as an ally of the President.

    “Standing by and working with Governor Siminalayi Fubara is the right thing to do and I urge you Mr. President to stand with Siminalayi Fubara.

    “My dear people as we urge our President and the Federal Government to stand with our son, we all have a duty to rally around him and stand with him,” he said.

    Abiye said Fubara assured him that he would comply with the Supreme Court judgment.

    He said he was honoured that the governor chose him to inaugurate the rehabilitated Borokiri Fire Station.

    Fubara said the purpose of government was to provide services to the people and protect lives and property.

    “So, when we are doing those things that we are elected to do and we start showcasing them, sometimes it doesn’t make any sense.

    “But you have to show the world what you are doing so that they will know that you are working. Some will commission boreholes and advertise them.

    “But for us, we have chosen to showcase to the world a vital and most needed item of service,” he said.

  • UPDATED: Supreme Court restrains CBN, AG-F from further releasing funds to Rivers govt

    UPDATED: Supreme Court restrains CBN, AG-F from further releasing funds to Rivers govt

    …voids last LG election in Rivers

    …awards N5m cost against Fubara 

    The Supreme Court has restrained the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AG-F) from further releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until a valid Appropriation Act is passed by a lawfully constituted House of Assembly, with Martins Amaewhule as the Speaker.

    In a unanimous judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court also ordered that Amaewhule and other 26 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, who are alleged to have defected, should be allowed to resume legislative duties unhindered.

    The Supreme Court also ordered that all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly are to resume normal legislative businesses without any hindrance to any members.

    Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, agreed with the arguments made by lawyer to the Amaewhule-led members of the Rivers Assembly, Dr. Ogwu James Onoja (SAN).

    Justice Agim condemned the conduct of Governor Simi Fubara, who he noted, chose to destroy the government of Rivers State and resort acting unlawfully by pulling down the House of Assembly owing to his fear that there were moves to impeach him.

    He said: “It must be stated loud and clear that the crisis in Rivers State is as a result of non-adherence to the rule of law as well as the fragrant disregard of court orders.”

    Justice Agim faulted the Court of Appeal for holding that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 which sought to restrain the CBN and AG-F from releasing funds to the Rivers State Govt owing to its failure to obtain a valid Appropriation Act in compliance with the January 22, 2024 judgment by Justice James Omotosho in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.

    Read Also: Troops kill 217 terrorists, arrest 122 oil thieves in February

    He also faulted the consequential to order my by the Appeal Court in the December 13 judgment, voiding the October 30, 2024 judgment by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.

    Justice Agim said:”The view of the Court of Appeal that suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is over the consolidated revenue fund of River State is wrong as it is not supported by the reliefs claimed for in the originating summons.

    “This wrong view influenced it to hold that the subject matter of this suit is not within the scope of the justification of the Federal High Court.

    “It is glaring that the objective of suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is to stop the release of funds to the first and second respondents herein – the Government of Rivers State and Simi Fubara – so as to compel them to comply with the judgment in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 by causing the passage of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the Constitution.

    “Suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is not a fresh action with the subject matter independent of the subject matter of suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023. It is sequel to the judgment in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023, the judge said.

    Justice Agim proceeded to set aside the December 13 judgment of the Court of Appeal, in which the appellate court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine on cases relating to funds belonging to Rivers State.

    He restored that the October 30 judgment by Justice Abdulmalik and all the consequential orders made thereto.

    The judge said: “In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the decision of the Court of Appeal that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024is wrong. 

    “The trial court validly exercised it’s jurisdiction to hear and determine suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 

    “So appeal number SC/CV/1174/2024 is resolved in favour of the appellants. On the whole, this appeal succeeds as it has merit. It is accordingly allowed /.

    “The order is the Court of Appeal made on the 13th of December 2024 in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1287/2024, striking out suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 for lack of jurisdiction is hereby set aside,” he said.

    Justice Agim faulted the decision of the Rivers State Governor to purporting to deploy the doctrine of necessity and the provisions of sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution to justify his decision to relate with only four members of a 32-member Rivers State House of Assembly.

    He held that, having created an environment that made it impossible for the state Assembly to lawfully function, Fubara could not rely on the provisions sections 102 and 109 and the doctrine of necessity give validity to the proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by less than 1/3 of the members and the action of his actions, which included presenting the state’s appropriate bill before a four-member Assembly.

    Justice Agim noted that Fubara had started preventing the House from conducting its businesses before the issue of defection occured.

    He held that having prevented the 27 members from conducting their legislative businesses by pulling down the Assembly complex, Fubara’s claim the the 27 members were not longer members of the state Assembly, on grounds that the had defected, is incorrect.

    “The claim that the 27 members are no longer members is a perpetuation of his attempt to prevent them from participating in the House business. The 27 members are still valid members of the House of Assembly,” justice Agima said.

    He added that Fubara’s fear of impeachment was not a justification for his attack on the House of Assembly.

    “What he has done is to destroy the government because of his fear that he wants to be impeached,” he said, while expressibg concern that this practice was becoming a culture among politicians.

    Justice Agim awarded a cost of N5million against Fubara and the Government of Rivers State, to be paid to the Rivers State House of Assembly and Amaewhule.

    Other members of the panel, Justices Uwani Abba-Aji (who presided), Ibrahim Saulawa, Chioma Nwosu-Iheme and Jamilu Tukur agreed with the lea judgment.

    In another judgement also delivered on Friday by the same panel, the Supreme Court voided the last Local Government election conducted in Rivers State on October 5 last year.

    All members of the panel unanimously held that the election was conducted in violation  unanimously held that the election was conducted in violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2024.

    Justice Jamilu Tukur, in the lead judgment, agreed with the appellant, the All Progressives Congress (APC) that conditions precedent were not complied with before the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission held the election.

    Justice Tukur held that there was no evidence the voters’ registration continued until 90 days before the election and that the requisite notices were issued as required by law.

  • JUST IN: Supreme court nullifies Rivers LG election over electoral act violation

    JUST IN: Supreme court nullifies Rivers LG election over electoral act violation

    The Supreme Court has voided the local government election held in Rivers State on October 5, 2024, ruling that it violated Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2024.

    Read Also: Troops kill 217 terrorists, arrest 122 oil thieves in February

    In a unanimous decision, a five-member panel of the apex court held that the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) failed to meet the necessary legal conditions before conducting the poll.

    Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Jamilu Tukur upheld the appeal by the All Progressives Congress (APC), noting the lack of evidence that voter registration was completed at least 90 days before the election or that the required notices were properly issued.

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court restrains CBN, AG-F from further release of funds to Rivers Govt

    BREAKING: Supreme Court restrains CBN, AG-F from further release of funds to Rivers Govt

    The Supreme Court has restrained the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AG-F) from further releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until a valid Appropriation Act is passed by a lawfully constituted House of Assembly, with Martins Amaewhule as the Speaker.

    In a unanimous judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court also ordered that Amaewhule and other 26 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, who are alleged to have defected, should be allowed to resume legislative duties unhindered.

    Read Also: FAO boosts business skills of veterinary paraprofessionals through training

    The Supreme Court also ordered that all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly are to resume normal legislative businesses without any hindrance.

    Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, condemned the conduct of Governor Simi Fubara, who he noted chose to destroy the government of Rivers State and resort acting unlawfully by pulling down the House of Assembly owing to his fear that there were moves to impeach him.

    The apex court set aside and earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, in which the appellate court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction on cases relating to funds belonging to Rivers State.

    It awarded a cost of N5million against Fubara and the Government of Rivers State, to be paid to the Rivers Assembly and Amaewhule.

    Details shortly…