The legal implications of the Supreme Court judgment on the Rivers State crisis

The issues in contention arose from appeals challenging the orders of the High Courts against the Rivers State Government and the Oko Jumbo-led Assembly.

1. Legality of the 2024 Budget Presentation

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Rivers State Government’s decision to proceed with an appropriation bill that did not originate from a fully constituted House of Assembly. The Court emphasized that since the defection matter involving certain lawmakers is yet to be determined before it, the government’s reliance on an incomplete legislative body is procedurally flawed.

2. INEC’s Voter Register and RSIEC’s Compliance with the Electoral Act

The Supreme Court also addressed the order restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing the voter register. The Court held that the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) had failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed that the order remains in force, meaning that litigation on this subject matter will continue at the High Court until a final determination is reached. It is also important to note that the judgment did not return the former chairmen whose tenures have elapsed.

Read also: Implications of Friday’s Supreme Court rulings on Rivers political crisis

3. Jurisdictional Issue in Oko Jumbo v. Martin Amaewhule & Others

On the matter between Oko Jumbo and Martin Amaewhule & Others, the Supreme Court ruled that the State High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the case. This aligns with my earlier legal analysis, which suggested that the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the State High Court and within the Federal High Court jurisdiction.

Furthermore, on this, Femi Falana, SAN, counsel to the Oko Jumbo-led Assembly, had previously informed us that the Federal High Court is currently hearing the case concerning the defection of Martin Amaewhule and others. This suggests a prolonged legal battle, but it is premature for opponents of the Rivers State Government to declare victory.

4. Fiscal Implications and Governance Challenges

A major implication of the Supreme Court’s ruling is the potential withholding of federal allocations to Rivers State, given the existing High Court orders challenging the legitimacy of the 2024 Appropriation Bill. However, the state government retains the option of relying on internally generated revenue (IGR) to sustain governance operations pending further judicial and political developments.

This is not unprecedented—Prior to 2003, President Bola Tinubu, as Governor of Lagos State, successfully administered the state using internally generated revenue for three years when federal allocations were withheld. Therefore, while this ruling presents a fiscal challenge, it does not render the Rivers State Government incapable of governance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision has introduced significant legal and political ramifications for Rivers State. The legitimacy of the Assembly, the budget process, and the electoral framework remain contentious issues, and further litigation at the respective High Courts continues. The ultimate resolution and finality of these matters will shape the state’s governance structure and political grounds in the coming months.

In spite of all these temporal challenges, we remain resolute with the Rivers State Governor His Excellency Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, at the end, Rivers State will triumph.

~ Ijoma Peter Obi, 28th February, 2025

(Ijoma Peter Obi is a Nigerian academic from Rivers State who works in writing, teaching, and other administrative roles. His areas of interest include politics, democracy, governance, and public policy.)