Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara is said to be headed to the Supreme Court after suffering defeat at the Appeal Court on Thursday in his suit filed against the state’s House of Assembly Speaker Martin Amaewhule.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had upheld Martin Amaewhule as the recognized Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, dismissing Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s appeal as lacking merit.
This unanimous judgment by a three-member panel is a significant development in the ongoing leadership tussle within the state assembly.
In an interview with The PUNCH, Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communications Joseph Johnson expressed disappointment with the judgment, stating that it would be challenged at the Supreme Court.
“There’s another level; that’s the Supreme Court. Remember, what went to the Court of Appeal was not the legitimacy of Amaewhule. What went to the Court of Appeal was the judgment of Justice Omotosho, and the ruling of the Court of Appeal was that the withdrawal of our case was because Mr. President directed that we withdraw all court cases,” Johnson said.
He emphasized that Amaewhule remains a defected member of the House, and the Constitution clearly states in Section 109 (12) that this is self-executory.
Johnson said, “The truth of the matter is that it didn’t help their case. Amaewhule is still a defected member of the House and the Constitution clearly, expressly states in Section 109 (12) that that is self-executory. When it gets to the Supreme Court, I believe that the truth will be unravelled.”
Johnson added, “So, there’s nothing to jubilate about. It didn’t make Amaewhule a member of the House or Assembly, it merely said go and present the budget. We know the genesis of the proceedings, but we trust that the Supreme Court, which is the final court, will do justice in this matter.”
The Court of Appeal’s decision upheld the January 22 judgment of the Federal High Court, which nullified the 2024 Rivers State budget due to improper presentation before the state Assembly. The court criticized Governor Fubara for violating the 1999 Constitution by presenting the budget to only four out of 31 assembly members.
Justice Joseph Oyewole stated that Fubara’s withdrawal from the trial court case indicated acceptance of the judgment, and he couldn’t claim dissatisfaction.
“By coming to the appellate court, the appellant was being inconsistent, approbating and reprobating, blowing hot and cold at the same time,” Justice Oyewole remarked.
He emphasized that such behavior had no legal basis, as parties must be consistent in court matters.
Justice Oyewole said, “A party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time; the appellant cannot seek for one thing at the lower court and be seeking for another incongruent and parallel thing in this court. Can the law permit him to blow hot and cold at the same time?
“The challenges faced by the appellant in this appeal are self-inflicted and try as one may, it is impossible to see the utilitarian value to be achieved by filing this appeal after withdrawing all processes contesting the action at the lower court and thereby conceding the action.”
Justice Oyewole held, “In a constitutional democracy, the foundation of every act must be located in the Constitution. Autocracy is out of place in the constitutional democracy.”
Justice Okon Abang concurred, criticizing Fubara’s actions as executive lawlessness and violating the Constitution and court orders.
He said, “The appellant, the Governor of Rivers State, treated the court order with disdain, levity, and subject to the discharge of his functions in an unprecedented manner. This is an act of executive lawlessness. The rule of might has no place in a democratic setting.”
He cited the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly complex and the attempted sham Assembly sitting as examples.
Justice Abang stated, “The appellant, the Governor of Rivers State, treated court orders with disdain, levity and subject to the discharge of his function in an unprecedented manner. I agree with the 1st and 2nd respondent counsel that these are acts of executive lawlessness.
“The rule of might has no place in a democratic setting. Having sworn to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, the appellant was and is expected to, in his relationship with the 1st and 2nd respondents, apply the rule of law, not the rule of might, in matters affecting the discharge of his functions as the governor of Rivers State.”
The court concluded by issuing an injunction, restraining Fubara from obstructing the operations of the Assembly under Amaewhule’s leadership and ordering the release of funds due to the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“In totality, therefore, this appeal is bereft of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgement of the lower Court is here and affirmed. N500,000 cost is awarded in favour of each of the 1st to 12th respondents respectively and against the appellant,” Justice Oyewole ruled.