Why Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of 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 by The Punch 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.

Read also: Rivers political crises: Gunmen open fire on peaceful assembly, 4 injured

Key points of the judgment

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 these allegations at the Federal High Court in Abuja. Since the allegation was withdrawn, “no defection had taken place,” and the Assembly must continue as it was originally formed.

The judgment declared it would be “unlawful” for Fubara to work with any Assembly other than the one led by Martins Amaewhule.

Court’s Criticism of the Governor’s Actions

The court stated: “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.”

The judges ruled that Fubara’s claim about the lawmakers’ defection was simply a cover-up to justify his illegal actions. They described his use of the “doctrine of necessity” as a misleading tactic aimed at destroying the Assembly and undermining the rule of law.

According to the judgment: “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 strongly criticized the governor’s approach: “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.”

Read also: Rivers Assembly rejects Fubara’s commissioners, gives 48 hours ultimatum for fresh nominees

Court Orders

The Supreme Court dismissed Governor Fubara’s cross-appeal and affirmed the Federal High Court’s decision in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024. It ordered the Central Bank and Accountant-General to stop releasing funds to Rivers State until a proper Appropriation Law is made. The court directed Amaewhule and the 26 lawmakers to “forthwith resume unhindered sitting” as the legitimate Rivers State House of Assembly.

The court concluded: “The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”