Rivers: Backlash of a Supreme verdict

In his book “The Power of Regrets,” Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgement that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on? Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgement’s repercussions, indeed have the most profound regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life. Daniel Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.

A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgement within the legal community.

One of the most contentious aspects of the judgement was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict in annulling the elections did not follow any precedent known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo. LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in, yet the Supreme Court annulled the election without hearing from the chairmen or their political parties. The only justification given by the apex court is that INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer.

This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status, which may affect vital social services. Even more curious is that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions, has plunged the people of Rivers State into financial uncertainty. How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.

Read also: Rivers House of Assembly members table impeachment notice to Gov Fubara, deputy

The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt. The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40 percent of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends. Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gaps.

The two actors, Gov. Sim Fubara on the one hand and Nyesom Wike, who is fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Minister Nyesom Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has allowed him to assert dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape—real or imagined. After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike has invested time, media appearances, and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State.” If Wike has any regrets, they are likely overshadowed by his sense of imperial entitlement.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the apex court ruling. He has repeatedly tried to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the Assembly’s latest attempt to ambush the state’s Chief Judge and hound him out of office.

This is one judgement that, in all respects, has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of the defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court.

The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal. In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007, when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions.

Thankfully, the Governor did not act in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below. Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgements of courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower courts.