Oditah’s interview on Arise TV was before the final judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on the Rivers State political crisis. The judgment of the Supreme Court CANNOT BE faulted. In my view, the judgment addresses all the concerns of the distinguished jurist, Prof Fidelis Oditah, QC, SAN. I salute the courage and judicial wisdom of the erudite and scholarly jurists of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, especially EMMANUEL AGIM, JSC in the lead judgement in
1.
Rivers State House of Assembly
- The Right Honourable Martin Chike Amaewhule-
(The Honourable Speaker, Rivers State
House of Assembly)
A N D - The Government of Rivers State and Ors. SC/CV/1174/2024 Delivered on 28 Feb. 2025, for upholding the brilliant judgement of the trial court and restoring the Rule of law in Rivers State. The three levels of court are in agreement on the principles of the Rule of Law enunciated in that case. Kudos to the judiciary for this.
Prof Yemi Akinseye-George, SAN
………
What Fidelis Oditah, QC, SAN said…
NIGERIA JUDICIARY ON THE BRINK FROM CORRUPTION
Court Misinterprets Federalism, Lacks Authority To Stop State Allocations – Prof. Oditah Accuses Wike Of ‘Procuring’ Judgments -November 3, 2024
Professor Fidelis Oditah
Says No “Process” Needed For Defecting Lawmakers To Lose Seats
Professor Fidelis Oditah, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and King’s Counsel (KC) in the United Kingdom, provided a thorough analysis of the escalating legal and political crises in Rivers State. Professor Oditah delved into the complexities of governance, constitutional law, and judicial independence, raising alarm over the integrity of Nigeria’s institutions and their ability to sustain democracy in an Arise TV segment on Friday.
The crisis in Rivers State, Oditah explained, centers on a high-stakes battle for political control between Governor Sim Fubara and his predecessor, now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. This conflict has broader implications, as it raises fundamental questions about governance and the rule of law in Nigeria. Oditah pointed out that the dispute is essentially a question of constitutional interpretation: who should legally govern Rivers State until the next election?
“This isn’t just a political feud,” he remarked. “It’s a question of who holds constitutional authority.” He noted the uncertainty about the loyalty of certain lawmakers in the state’s House of Assembly, pointing out that their alleged defection had further fueled tensions. According to him, the law on defection should be straightforward, as Section 109(1)(g) of Nigeria’s Constitution mandates that legislators lose their seats upon changing party allegiance, but the courts have so far been ambiguous, compounding the uncertainty.
The lawmakers in question are arguing they did not properly complete the legal process of defection and therefore have not lost their seats. However, Prof. Oditah firmly rejected this position during an appearance on Arise TV.
“There is no such thing as a process of defection,” he stated unequivocally. “It’s like saying there’s a process of resignation. There isn’t. Once you resign, the resignation is self-executing.”
Oditah, compared a lawmaker’s defection to other automatic legal conditions. “It’s also similar to lunacy. If you’re a lunatic, you are mad. There is no process of lunacy. It’s ipso facto,” he explained.
The senior advocate argued that based on a straightforward reading of the Constitution, the act of defection is instantaneous and irreversible once declared. “Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution is very clear,” Oditah said. “[Where there is carpet crossing as] supported by sworn affidavit… that should be open and short. It’s very straightforward. There is nothing to interpret.”
He was equally emphatic that merely announcing one’s defection is sufficient under the law. “Once a man says ‘I defect’ or ‘I leave’ or ‘I have left,’ that’s the end of it,” Oditah asserted. “There’s nothing to interpret… There is no process of defection.”
The Professor said it was “astonishing” that the lawmakers who defected are the same ones who secured a court ruling to stop federal allocations to Rivers State. He suggested the Federal High Court that issued the order was “obviously misled” on this point.
Oditah described the unfolding situation as a “theater of the absurd” and a “caricature” that has led the courts to “vacillate” on what should be a very clear-cut legal issue regarding the status of defecting legislators.
In a controversial decision, a federal high court recently ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria to halt monthly federal allocations to Rivers State, citing concerns over the legitimacy of the State Assembly’s functioning. Professor Oditah criticized this move, stressing that federal allocations are a central tenet of Nigeria’s federal system. He argued that halting the funds not only undermines the people of Rivers State but also creates an alarming precedent that could destabilize other states.
“Federal allocations are at the heart of Nigeria’s federalism,” he emphasized. “Rivers State is not simply Governor Fubara or Minister Wike; it’s a federating unit with a constitutional right to these funds. Stopping these funds harms the people of the state.” Oditah likened the situation to the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, which held that President Obasanjo had no authority to withhold local government funds from Lagos State, adding that the court’s ruling reflects a lack of understanding of federal principles.
Drawing parallels to the current situation, Oditah asserted, “Clearly the judge did not understand the essence of federalism and had no power… he could not make the order he made, because Rivers State cannot be a federating state without being entitled to receive [federal allocations].”
He argued the monies in question belong to the people of Rivers as a federating unit, not the State Governor or House of Assembly. “What [the state] does with that money is entirely an internal matter,” Oditah said.
The senior advocate likened the judge’s order to “placing the cart before the horse,” maintaining that “there is a clear distinction between the entitlement of a state” to federal allocations and the subsequent appropriation of such funds based on a budget passed by the State Assembly.
“The money cannot be stopped. The money does not belong to [Governor] Fubara. The money belongs to the people of Rivers State,” Oditah declared. “That money must come whether or not you can stop Fubara once the money is in Rivers State from disbursing it.”
Turning to the judiciary, Professor Oditah did not mince words. He expressed grave concerns over the judiciary’s perceived lack of independence, asserting that some judges in Rivers State case have allowed themselves to be influenced by powerful political interests, especially those loyal to Wike.
Prof. Oditah stated, “As soon as you go we all knew that soon Mr Wike was going to procure a judgment. I use ‘procure’ because I don’t know how of course these cases are argued and of… [Wike] doesn’t seem to lose any case and it’s unusual for a person to always win all his cases whatever the facts are, whatever the legal issues are.”
The senior advocate went on to say the judges involved “should be ashamed that Mr Wike is able to obtain whatever judgment he wants from them.” He expressed disappointment that “Wike is a [villain]… the man who has such poor reputation” yet seems to consistently get favorable rulings.
Casting aspersions on the judiciary, Oditah said recent court decisions out of Rivers State have been “largely unfortunate” and opined that “the courts have allowed themselves to be manipulated and to be used in furtherance of political causes.”
He bemoaned the damage to the reputation of the courts, noting that in his youth, they were a “highly revered institution.” According to him, “The present occupants of the position have… largely brought the position into disrepute and I feel ashamed for them.”
Prof. Oditah said it’s difficult to tell where judicial “incompetence ends and corruption begins” in the state. However, he believes some rulings have been “so crass that you cannot describe it fairly and honestly as a product of incompetence – the only way to describe it is that it is corruptly procured.”
The senior advocate alleged there is “widespread concern” even among top judicial officers about the “integrity of the judges and the fact that a number of judges unfortunately are corrupt or biased, whether the bias is caused by political affiliations or economic and monetary inducements.”
He argued that this undermines public trust, as the courts, which should be neutral and uphold justice, have become entangled in political manoeuvring.
Oditah lamented that the judiciary’s reputation has deteriorated, recalling a time when Nigerian courts were revered for their independence. “There is a difference between ignorance and willful bias,” he asserted. “When judicial rulings appear consistently slanted, it’s difficult to dismiss concerns about corruption or undue influence.”
He warned the situation leaves much to be desired and “democracy is being pushed to the brink” in Rivers State by impunity and lawlessness. Oditah cautioned that if unchecked, “you will tip over and everybody will be full of regrets.”
Professor Oditah also turned his attention to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), currently under scrutiny for its legality and operational effectiveness. While acknowledging that the EFCC was established by law, he argued that the agency has deviated from its original mandate. “The EFCC has three core problems,” he said, listing political misuse, mission drift, and internal corruption. He accused the EFCC of acting as a debt collection agency, handling cases that fall outside its purview and targeting individuals over minor financial disputes instead of pursuing high-profile corruption cases.
Moreover, Oditah highlighted allegations of corruption within the EFCC itself, recalling an incident where a former governor of Zamfara State claimed he was asked for a $2 million bribe by an EFCC official to avoid prosecution. “When the agency mandated to fight corruption is itself tainted, it becomes difficult to trust its work,” he remarked, adding that structural reforms are needed to restore credibility to Nigeria’s anti-corruption efforts.
Oditah concluded by voicing a somber assessment of Nigeria’s current political climate. He warned that Nigeria’s institutions are on the verge of collapse, with the judiciary and law enforcement agencies struggling under the influence of powerful interests. Drawing a parallel with the January 6th events in the United States, he noted that while American institutions withstood pressure, Nigeria’s institutions are at risk of failing due to the lack of independence and resilience.
