- Federal High Court was misled – Oditah, SAN
Sequel to the Court of Appeal’s judgement on Friday which barred the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, from withholding the monthly federal allocations due to Rivers State, there has been jubilation in the camp of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.
The Court sitting in Abuja issued a split ruling on Friday. Two judges ruled in favour of the Rivers State government, while one dissented.
Governor Fubara through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Yusuf Ali, SAN had asked the three-member panel of the appellate court led by Justice Hamma Barka, to set aside a subsisting order of the High Court that compelled CBN to withhold the state’s monthly allocation.
The governor claimed the High Court judgement was given in bad faith.
He had urged the appellate court to allow his appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/1303/2024, and nullify adverse orders that Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court made against the state in the judgement she delivered on October 30.
Recall that the federal government backtracked after it first said it would halt the October monthly Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) revenue payment to Rivers State, citing a court order as the reason.
According to Bawa Mokwa, spokesperson for the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, the decision to stop the payment was in respect of the court order, which barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the federal government from disbursing monthly allocations to the Rivers State government.
The court order was obtained by the factional Rivers State Assembly, led by Martin Amaewhule, who had filed an originating summons against the Rivers State Executive, under the leadership of Simi Fubara.
The Amaewhule faction loyal to former governor and current minister, Nyesom Wike, had alleged that the Rivers State Executive had yet to comply with the order of a Federal High Court directing it to re-present the 2024 appropriation bill to the faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Mokwa emphasised that the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF) would respect the court order, following due diligence until a contrary order was issued.
She later cited a subsisting appeal, saying that the allocation could not be stopped.
The FAAC disburses revenue to the three tiers of government, including states, local governments, and the federal government.
In an interview with Arise TV, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Fidelis Oditah remarked that the Federal High Court was misled on the issue.
“The Federal High Court obviously was misled because the receipt of State allocation is at the heart of the Federation. It’s not a dispute between the lawmakers and the governor. The entitlement to receive FAC monies every month is very central to the federalism we operate. It is not possible for River State to be a federating state and not to receive that money.
“This is very different from the dispute that was had with Governor Tinubu. At that time when Obasanjo seized the local government money, he did not seize the monies of Lagos State, he couldn’t seize the monies but he thought he could seize the monies of the local government. But the Supreme Court in 2004 made it clear that he had no power to do so and that his action was illegal and unconstitutional.
“Of course, there is a difference between OBJ seizing local government funds in Lagos and the Federal High Court purporting to interpret or misinterpret the law. Clearly, the judge did not understand the essence of federalism and had no power to make the order he made because Rivers State cannot be a federating state without being entitled to receive.
“What it does with that money is entirely an internal matter. I see how he qualified the order by saying until there’s a state appropriation law but that’s like placing the cats before the horse.
In the earlier case, it’s a president refusing to release to sign whatever he needed to sign, in this case it’s a court saying the Central Bank should not release. So to that extent, you might draw some artificial distinctions by saying the dispute is always resolved or supposed to be resolved in a constitutional democracy by the courts. But what the court has done is simply a caricature and I think the whole thing is just a theatre of absurdity.”
On the question of there being no proper appropriation law in force in River State since the State Assembly was not properly constituted to make the appropriation law under contention and therefore it is null and void, Oditah said:
“that argument is mistaken there is a clear distinction between the entitlement of a state. The state is not the Governor, the River State is not Fubara, it’s not Wike, it’s more than a geographical area consisting of people who Federated with other 0people from other states. Those are the people who are entitled to the money. The monies do not belong to Fubara, the monies do not belong to the local nor the House of Assembly, so there is no capacity to stop the people of River State from receiving their own share as a federating unit.
“Once that money is received how the money is disbursed is a matter of appropriation law. But that’s why I said that trying to stop it Upstream is trying to place the cat before the horse. The money cannot be stopped, the money does not belong to Fubara, the money belongs to the people of River State that money must come whether or not you can stop Fubara once the money is in River State from misusing it is a dispute between him and the but you cannot stop the people of River State.”
