Why Amaewhule-led Rivers assembly was restored — Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has explained that it restored the Martins Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of Assembly because a House of Assembly must be formed as stated in the 1999 Constitution.
In the 62-page Certified True Copy of its judgment obtained on Thursday in Abuja, the apex court ruled that there was “no iota or shred of evidence” to prove that the 27 lawmakers defected from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress.
On February 28, the court stopped the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant-General of the Federation from releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until the House of Assembly is properly formed according to the law.
Justice Emmanuel Agim, who signed the judgment, stated that the Constitution does not support Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s decision to recognize only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.
The court explained that Fubara initially accused the 27 lawmakers of defecting but later “voluntarily withdrew the allegations” at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
According to the court, since the allegation was withdrawn, “no defection had taken place,” and the Assembly must continue as it was.
The judgment stated that it would be “unlawful” for Fubara to engage with any Assembly other than the one led by Martins Amaewhule.
The court added, “What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the eighth 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.
It further ruled that Fubara’s claim of defection was a cover-up to justify his illegal actions, describing his reliance on the doctrine of necessity as a “red herring” aimed at destroying the Assembly and the rule of law.
The judgment stated, “The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo… 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 the public interest.”
The court criticized Fubara’s actions, saying, “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 to govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is, there is no government in Rivers State.”
It also ruled that political disagreements cannot justify attacks on the rule of law, stating, “What the eighth respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.”
The court dismissed Fubara’s cross-appeal, affirming the decision of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.
It ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant-General 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 by the 1999 Constitution.”
The court directed that Martins Amaewhule and the 26 lawmakers should “forthwith resume unhindered sitting” as Speaker and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
It added, “The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”
