By Comfort Olayinka
The Supreme Court has shed light on its decision to restore the Hon Martin Amaewhule-led leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly, citing a lack of evidence to support claims of defection made against 27 members of the House.
The apex court’s 62-page judgment emphasized that there was no shred of evidence to back up the allegations of defection from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
According to the judgment, Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, who raised the allegations, withdrew them at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Supreme Court held that, in the eyes of the law, no defection had taken place, and the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain. Justice Emmanuel Agim emphasized that the Constitution did not support Governor Fubara’s position, which recognized only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.
The judgment also criticized Governor Fubara’s actions, stating that he had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly and that his reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution was an attempt to continue his “brazen subversion” of the House and the Constitution.
The court ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should stop releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until an Appropriation Law is made by the restored House of Assembly.
The Supreme Court’s decision effectively restores the Amaewhule-led leadership, and the House of Assembly is expected to resume sitting with all elected members forthwith. This development is likely to have significant implications for the political landscape in Rivers State.
What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8″ 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.
What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8″ 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 8” 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, i 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 of the Rivers State House of Assembly 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.
“The 8th 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 daim 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. Section 102. of the Constitution that provides that “A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings”, cannot be relied on to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of over 90% of the members or to justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of a member of the House or to justify the contrived illegal exclusion of 27 members and officials from the House and illegal shutting down of the House by destroying the legislative building and House of Assembly complex and blocking access to the place by legislators and officials of the House.
“A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the Government of a State under the 1999 Constitution. 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 8” 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 public interest.
“The 8″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 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 8” respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.
“In the light of the foregoing, I hold that Cross-appeal No SC/CV/1175A/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
“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 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 y the !999 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
