By John Egbeazien Oshodi
It is absolutely essential that the Rivers State government reclaims this battle, taking their case back to the people’s court, where justice can be genuinely served, starting with the state judges who understand the local context. They should not waste their time on judges like Justice Omotosho, who consistently render rulings outside their jurisdiction, further eroding public trust in the judiciary.
Justice Oyewole and his panel must understand that their actions are under scrutiny; the people are watching, and they will not tolerate a judiciary that prioritizes what many perceive as political manipulation over justice. The integrity of the legal system is at stake, and the people of Rivers State demand accountability and fairness—not the farcical judgments that have become all too common in Abuja.
This writer, a psychologist and not a lawyer, approaches the recent Court of Appeal ruling with an ethical, democratic, and societal perspective, particularly within the framework of Nigeria’s notoriously corrupt judicial system. In a nation where the judiciary is often viewed as compromised, many Nigerians laugh at judicial decisions, especially when high-profile politicians and Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) appear to wield undue influence over the courts. The intersection of political power and legal authority in Nigeria raises grave concerns about judicial integrity, fostering a widespread public perception that court rulings are more susceptible to political manipulation than to the pursuit of truth.
Within this unsettling context, the recent Court of Appeal ruling—affirming Martin Amaewhule as the legitimate Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly and nullifying Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s 2024 budget—demands profound scrutiny. Although the decision may appear constitutionally sound, it emerges from a judicial landscape that has long been criticized for politicization. The Nigerian judiciary is perceived by many as functioning not as a neutral institution but as a platform where political elites and legal heavyweights exert influence for personal and party gains.
Democratic Perspectives: Falana and Ajulo’s Critiques:
Femi Falana, SAN, a highly respected human rights lawyer, argues that members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) should automatically lose their seats. His position is firmly grounded in the Nigerian Constitution, which explicitly states that lawmakers cannot retain their seats if they switch parties, except in cases of a verified division within their former party. Falana’s use of the term “political prostitution” serves as a stark reminder of the need for integrity in political representation, emphasizing the importance of lawmakers being accountable to the mandate given to them by voters.
Yet, the Court of Appeal’s ruling, particularly under the leadership of Justice Joseph Oyewole, seemingly disregards these fundamental constitutional principles. The three-member panel concluded that Martin Amaewhule and his faction remained legitimate, despite the fact that these lawmakers had publicly declared their defection to the APC—a reality even acknowledged by the national PDP. This glaring contradiction raises serious questions about the logic and foundation of the court’s ruling, especially in light of the clear constitutional guidelines regarding defections and the forfeiture of legislative seats.
In this context, Dr. Kayode Ajulo’s legal action resonates deeply with Falana’s perspective. It centers on the recent controversy surrounding Governor SiminalayiFubara’s 2024 budget. Ajulo argues that the defecting lawmakers, who have ignored the constitutional stipulations regarding their party switch, should not have any say in the legislative process. His lawsuit seeks to prevent Governor Fubara from re-presenting the 2024 budget to the House of Assembly until the matter is resolved. By doing so, Ajulo highlights the critical intersection between legal integrity and state governance, emphasizing that the budget’s presentation and the confirmation of appointed commissioners should be halted pending the hearing and determination of the ongoing suit.
This legal challenge underscores the urgency of upholding constitutional principles vital for maintaining democratic governance in Rivers State and Nigeria at large. By questioning the right of the defectors to participate in legislative processes, Ajulo not only advocates for accountability but also calls into question the legitimacy of a governance structure that allows political maneuvering to undermine the will of the electorate. The panel’s ruling, therefore, not only perpetuates a cycle of impunity but also reveals a troubling disregard for the principles of democracy, leaving the citizens of Rivers State to bear the painful consequences of such political intrigue.
Ethical Oversight in the Appellate Court’s Endorsement of Justice Omotosho’s Controversial Ruling:
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has faced persistent criticism for his politically sensitive rulings. Despite Falana’s and Ajulo’s assertions that these defectors could no longer retain their legislative seats, Justice Omotosho ruled to invalidate Governor Fubara’s N800 billion budget, claiming it was improperly presented to the full House.
The appellate judges’ endorsement of this ruling raises significant concerns about judicial oversight. They seemingly overlooked the fact that the non-defected lawmakers retained their seats and their constitutional right to participate in legislative matters, including the budget. This oversight not only compromises the integrity of the judiciary but also threatens its commitment to democratic principles.
Justice Oyewole’s critique of Governor Fubara is not only misguided; it is an appalling display of judicial ineffectiveness. By referencing a prior Federal High Court order that restrained the governor from engaging with the House, Oyewole condemned Fubara for acting “lawlessly” and treating the court order with “levity and disdain” for presenting the budget to a mere four lawmakers instead of the constitutionally mandated two-thirds. This simplistic view completely disregards the intricate political realities at play, particularly the mass defections that have been extensively reported.
While it is true that the issues of defection were not formally before the panel, it is astonishing that Oyewole and his two colleagues, fully aware of the ongoing legal battles regarding these defections in various courts, would still choose to rule in favor of the Amaewhule-led assembly—an assembly that is legally and politically homeless. To assert that this assembly is legitimate is not only tricky; it is also utterly absurd and reveals a shocking lack of reliable insight and ethical grounding on the part of the panel.
Such an oversight raises concerns about the prioritization of political considerations over justice. This is particularly troubling in light of the Nigerian judiciary’s reputation, which is often questioned due to ethical challenges and perceived lack of integrity. The actions of Oyewole and his colleagues seem to reflect not the pursuit of impartial justice, but a tendency toward decisions that may align with political interests. This situation inevitably leads to public skepticism about whether the legal system truly serves to protect the rights ofAs a psychologist, I must say it’s concerning (and maybe a little baffling) that Justice Oyewole and his two colleagues managed to dodge the glaring issue of defections in Rivers State, despite it not being the main matter before them.
It’s almost as if they were more interested in playing referee in a football match while ignoring the fact that half the players had switched teams! By criticizing Governor Fubara for “lawlessness” while sidestepping the deeper crisis of representation, the ruling raises serious ethical concerns about the judiciary’s role in upholding fairness and democratic values. This oversight not only undermines trust in the legal process but also weakens the judiciary’s responsibility to protect democracy.
As far as the Nigerian constitution is concerned, these defectors are no longer legitimate legislators, so it begs the question—what exactly is there to overlook here?
The political turmoil in Rivers State is quite the spectacle, especially with former Governor Nyesom Wike’s antics. One minute he’s firmly with the PDP, and the next, he’s cozying up to defecting lawmakers who can’t seem to decide if they’re in the PDP or the APC—it’s like they’re playing a game of political hopscotch! Wike is not only battling these defectors but also taking on the recognized legislators under Governor Fubara, another fellow PDP member. Is this man okay, or has he lost the plot in this political drama? It seems to be all about himself! Meanwhile, the National PDP’s rejection of these flip-flopping legislators raises even more eyebrows about the Court of Appeal’s ruling. With recent appeal decisions making waves, many esteemed lawyers are sharpening their pens, taking aim at the courts, and giving them a good public shaming. Talk about deep divisions in the political landscape—Rivers State is shaping up to be quite the political circus!
How could the appeals panel, led by Justice Oyewole, possibly arrive at this conclusion when the very group it backs can’t even decide which party they belong to? One day they’re APC, and the next, they’re PDP again! Most Nigerian legal experts, including the PDP itself, argue that Amaewhule and his group lost any legitimate claim to represent the party the moment they publicly defected. By upholding their claim, the Court of Appeal has effectively ignored the constitutional provision against defections, further adding to the political chaos in Rivers State.
The Precarious Future of Judicial and Political Integrity
From a psychological perspective, the ramifications of such judicial instability are painfully deep. A society that perceives its legal system as biased and politically compromised develops a pervasive sense of disillusionment and apathy toward civic engagement. The erosion of trust in public institutions, coupled with a detachment from the democratic process, further entrenches a cycle of disenfranchisement. When citizens lose faith in the judiciary, they may resort to extrajudicial means to seek justice, leading to increased societal unrest and a deterioration of public order. The psychological toll is heavy, as individuals internalize feelings of helplessness and frustration, feeling abandoned by the very systems designed to protect their rights.
Moreover, the ethical implications extend beyond the courtroom into the broader societal context. The failure of the judiciary to act as an impartial arbiter undermines the rule of law and diminishes the moral authority of the state. In a democracy, the judiciary is expected to serve as a bulwark against political overreach and to protect the rights of citizens. When this role is compromised, the consequences can be dire, resulting in a society marked by inequity, division, and disillusionment. The people’s faith in justice becomes a distant memory, replaced by a pervasive sense of betrayal.
Rivers State finds itself under siege from all angles—systematically pressed on by the entrenched powers that be, including the judiciary, the police, and even the presidency. This complex assault complicates the efforts of Governor Fubara and his administration as they navigate a landscape where the very institutions meant to protect democracy are wielded as instruments of oppression. Yet, amidst this oppressive atmosphere, there is a glimmer of hope: the unwavering spirit of the people and the enduring power of truth.
For Nigeria to progress, it must prioritize the establishment of an independent judiciary that can withstand political pressures. This necessitates a collective societal commitment to uphold the rule of law and to demand accountability from public officials. Only through concerted efforts can Nigeria hope to rebuild the trust necessary for a thriving democracy and a just society. In this context, the struggle for judicial integrity transcends a mere legal battle; it is a crucial step toward fostering a healthier, more equitable political landscape that aligns with the aspirations of its citizens for a better future.
The so-called “Abuja judge mentality,” epitomized by Justice Oyewole and his panel, stands as a grotesque mockery of judicial integrity. Their dismissive ruling not only strips the Rivers State government, led by the resilient Governor Fubara, of its legitimacy but also reveals a disturbing and alarming disregard for the democratic principles they are sworn to uphold. This ruling does not merely affect the politics of the moment; it strikes at the very heart of justice itself. The Rivers State government has endured relentless abuse and attacks from the entrenched powers; yet, it must rise to this challenge with unwavering determination and fierce resolve. In this uphill battle for justicethe indomitable Rivers people stand united against an oppressive tide that seeks to subvert their voices and erase their rights. Their struggle is not just against the ruling but against an entire system that has shown time and again its willingness to sacrifice integrity for political expedience.
While this matter may eventually reach the Supreme Court—a body itself marred by a history of scandals and ethical compromises—it is crucial that the justices do not succumb to fear, technicalities, or the insidious influences of power. They must look to the spirit and letter of the law, recognizing that the implications of their decisions extend far beyond legal technicalities; they touch the lives of ordinary citizens who seek justice in a system often riddled with corruption and betrayal.
The pressure to conform to political expectations can be overwhelming, but it is essential that the highest court reclaims its role as a defender of the Constitution. Should the highest court falter in its duty and surrender to the shadows, the Rivers people will remain the true victors in this struggle. They will not submit to the rule of man nor the dark machinations of the powerful. Their resilience, rooted in the pursuit of genuine justice and democratic integrity, will outlast the transient whims of those who seek to manipulate the system for their gain. In the end, it is the people who will rise, reminding the judiciary that their mandate is to serve justice, not the interests of the powerful.
It is absolutely essential that the Rivers State government reclaims this battle, taking their case back to the people’s court, where justice can be genuinely served, starting with the state judges who understand the local context. They should not waste their time on judges like Justice Omotosho, who consistently render rulings outside their jurisdiction, further eroding public trust in the judiciary. Justice Oyewole and his panel must understand that their actions are under scrutiny; the people are watching, and they will not tolerate a judiciary that prioritizes what many perceive as political manipulation over justice.
The integrity of the legal system is at stake, and the people of Rivers State demand accountability and fairness—not the farcical judgments that have become all too common in Abuja. Here lies the good news: in the battle for truth and justice, it is ultimately the people who will prevail. Their unwavering spirit and determination to hold their leaders accountable is the lifeblood of democracy. The struggle for judicial and political integrity in Rivers State is not merely an ideal; it is a reflection of a collective desire for a just society, a society where the truth reigns and democracy is fortified. Amid the challenges posed by those in power, the hope for a better future remains firmly anchored in the resolve of the people to fight for what is right.
