By Lawal Ogienagbon
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:
“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
