The Supreme Court of Nigeria has emphatically reaffirmed the authority of the Martins Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of Assembly, underscoring the constitutional imperative for the proper formation of a legislative body. The Court’s comprehensive 62-page judgment meticulously dismantles the arguments presented by Governor Siminalayi Fubara, who had recognized a mere four members as the legitimate Assembly. The crux of the Supreme Court’s ruling hinges on the lack of credible evidence to substantiate Fubara’s initial claim of defection by the 27 lawmakers from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Court highlighted Fubara’s subsequent withdrawal of these allegations in the Federal High Court, concluding that, in the absence of proven defection, the Assembly should continue to function with its duly elected members.
The Supreme Court’s judgment hinges on the fundamental tenets of constitutionalism and the rule of law. It categorically states that Governor Fubara’s actions, which effectively paralyzed the legislative arm of the Rivers State government, were unconstitutional and undermined the very foundation of democratic governance. The Court meticulously traced the timeline of events, establishing that Fubara’s obstruction of the Assembly’s proceedings predated the defection allegations, revealing a premeditated attempt to circumvent the legislative process. This strategic dismantling of the Governor’s narrative exposed his actions as a calculated maneuver to consolidate power and govern without the necessary checks and balances provided by a functioning legislature.
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a resounding endorsement of the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of democratic governance. By invalidating Fubara’s actions, the Court reinforces the importance of maintaining the distinct roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The judgment explicitly criticizes Fubara’s attempt to “collapse the Legislature,” describing it as an effort to rule as a “despot.” This strong language underscores the severity of the Governor’s actions and the Court’s unwavering commitment to upholding constitutional principles. The Court’s assertion that “there is no government in Rivers State” as long as the legislature remains dysfunctional further emphasizes the essential role of the Assembly in a functioning democracy.
Furthermore, the Court rejected Fubara’s reliance on the doctrine of necessity, a legal principle that allows for extraordinary measures in exceptional circumstances. The Court argued that this doctrine applies only to unforeseen situations not addressed by the Constitution and cannot be invoked to justify an intentionally created illegal status quo. Fubara’s actions, the Court determined, were not a response to an unforeseen crisis but a deliberate attempt to subvert the legislative process. By rejecting the applicability of the doctrine of necessity, the Court reinforced the principle that adherence to the Constitution is paramount and cannot be disregarded even under the guise of expediency or political maneuvering.
The Court’s detailed judgment leaves no room for ambiguity. It explicitly directs the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant-General of the Federation to cease all financial disbursements to the Rivers State government until an Appropriation Law is passed by a properly constituted House of Assembly. This directive underscores the critical role of the legislature in the budgetary process and reinforces the Court’s commitment to enforcing the constitutional framework. The judgment further mandates the immediate resumption of sittings by Martins Amaewhule and the other 26 lawmakers, effectively reinstating the full Assembly. This clear and decisive action serves to restore the legislative branch and ensure the continuation of democratic governance in Rivers State.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case stands as a significant reaffirmation of the principles of constitutionalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law. It serves as a stark reminder that personal or political agendas cannot supersede the established legal framework. The Court’s meticulous deconstruction of Governor Fubara’s arguments, its unwavering commitment to upholding constitutional principles, and its decisive directives provide a clear roadmap for the restoration of a fully functional government in Rivers State. The judgment serves as a powerful precedent and a strong message that attempts to undermine the democratic process will not be tolerated.
