By Sylvester Udemezue
MEMORY VERSE:
“Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin. True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. Justice and power must be brought together so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just. Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
(A) Preliminary Observations
1. Although the CTC of the 28 February 2025 Supreme Court judgment directing the group of 27 Honourables in the Rivers State House of Assembly to resume sitting, is not yet out (we can’t wait to have it), I have read news reports and I believe that this representation from respected Kayode Enitan (Senior Advocate of Nigeria) is true: “I read in the blog that they remain members of the house until the issue of their defection is determined.” Meanwhile, news reports from a news medium goes thus, in part:
“The Supreme Court has ordered the Martins Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly and other elected members to resume legislative duties immediately without any hindrance. The apex court concurred with the Federal High Court judgment, affirming that the 27 lawmakers who allegedly defected from the PDP to the APC remain valid members of the Rivers Assembly until a final decision on their status is made. The five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Emmanuel Agim, also reinstated a judgment barring the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)and the Accountant General of the Federation from releasing monthly allocations to Rivers State, marking a significant development in the ongoing crisis. The court criticized the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal for overturning the initial order that halted the release of funds to Rivers State from the consolidated revenue.”_ [See: “Updated: Supreme Court intervenes in Rivers political crisis, orders Amaewhule-led lawmakers to resume sitting”; 28 February 2025; persecondnews]
2. Other takeaways from the judgement, based on news reports, include:
(A) Reinstatement of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk: The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the House, as well as other staff who had been unlawfully removed; and
(B). Freezing of State Allocations: The Supreme Court directed the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant-General of the Federation to halt the disbursement of funds to the Rivers State Government until the House of Assembly is properly constituted. [See: “Supreme Court Ruling Deepens Rivers Political Crisis, Freezes State Funds, Nullifies LG Elections”;* 01 March 2025; okay.ng].
3. The judgement on the lawmakers status has sparked mixed reactions, with some hailing it as a victory for democracy and others criticizing it as a setback. The situation remains complex, with uncertainties surrounding the fate of the state’s finances and the legal status of the lawmakers’ defection. Thus rather than resolve the logjam, the Supreme Court appears to have while deepening the logjam, only given a direction towards its final resolution. However, it’s my respectful opinion that until the resolution of the legal status of the group of 27 as directed by the Supreme Court, there is not yet any cause for jubilation on the part of either party to the quagmire. The REALITY, aa i see it, is that the legal status of the group of 27 is like a baggage that must follow them and affect everything until finally determined. He who brings home an ant-infested firewood has no doubt invited lizards to a feast; that’s what is playing out in Rivers State. We had at the onset preached out-of-court, political resolution to the crisis; however, all this appears too late now; so let the law take its course. [See: “Rivers State: Analysing The Just-Ended Wike-Fubara War In Light Of Governor Sim’s ‘No Price Is Too Much For Peace To Reign’ Declaration” By Sylvester Udemezue; 20 December 2023; TheNigerianVoice].
4. In respect of Supreme Court’s direction that the group of 27 Honorables should resume sitting as members of the House pending determination or resolution of their LEGAL STATUS following from disputes about their defection and its legal effects, and all questions arising therefrom, I submit that any, every and all judgements of a Court of law must be obeyed by all, irrespective of anyone’s opinion about the judgement(s).See the Supreme Court case of ROSSEK V. A.C.B. LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382 at pages 434-435 E-C where Ogundare, JSC said that “A party who knows of an order [of a competent court of law], whether null or valid, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it. …. an order…whether an order was null or valid – whether it was regular or irregular, [a]s long as it existed, it must not be disobeyed.” Generally, therefore, orders of a competent Court must be obeyed as long as they subsist, if the authority and administration of the Court are not to be brought into disrepute, scorn or disrespect. They remain binding on parties thereto until set aside by a superior Court of competent jurisdiction or declared null and void. Thus, once a party knows of the subsistence of an order of Court, whether valid or not and whether regular or irregular or even perverse, he is obliged to obey it. See ADEBAYO V. JOHNSON (1969) 1 All NLR 176; ALADEGBEMI V. FASANMADE (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129; KOMOLAFE V. OMOLE (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.268) 213; ROSSEK V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. (supra).” See also the dictum of MUHAMMAD, J.S.C ( Pp. 23-27, paras. E-C ) in OSHIOMHOLE & ANOR V. FGN & ANOR (2004) LPELR-5188(CA). Accordingly, the directive of the Supreme Court must be complied with while court-resolution of issues surrounding their defection on 11 December 2023 are awaited to know their legal status and authority to participate in the businesses of the House of Assembly of Rivers State.
5. However, it is respectfully submitted that it would be an exercise in both self-denial and self-delusion for anyone who is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the current imbroglio in Rivers State to ignore/overlook the reasonable and practical implications of the Supreme Court’s express acknowledgement that the LEGAL STATUS of the group of 27 is yet to be determined. Anyone who chooses to ignore the implications of that caveat has made a choice, and should be ready to live with the consequences of such a choice.
6. The group of 27 had reportedly VOLUNTARILY defected on 11 December 2023 knowing fully the legal implications of their said action. If the other members of the House and the Governor of the State decided (as they had done) to treat the defectors as ex-members, and to proceed to act accordingly, I respectfully submit that it’s unjust, unfair, and one-sided for anyone to blame the other parties. There are judgements of the Supreme Court which expressly stated that unless his present political party is factionalized AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL or is otherwise undergoing MERGER plans with other political party or parties, a serving lawmaker who voluntarily defects to a different political party has AUTOMATICALLY and MANDATORILY lost his seat and thereby ceased to be a member of the affected Legislative House effective from the day of such a defection. In AG FEDERATION V ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1041) 1 AT 178, Aderemi, JSC held thus: “If any of these elective members after winning an election on the platform of a political party, later…defects to another political party, he is deemed, in law, to have AUTOMATICALLY VACATED his seat in the House of which he is a member. No other interpretation can be given to the above provision….”. In DAPIANLONG V DARIYE [2007] NGSC 181), the Supreme Court (per Onnoghen, while delivering the lead judgment) held: “There is no doubt that there existed in the Plateau State House of Assembly 14 vacant seats as a result of cross-carpeting.” And in ABUGUNDE V ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2014) LPELR-23683 (CA) (pp. 78-79, while citing with approval the Supreme Court case of AG FEDERATION v ABUBAKAR (supra), the Court of Appeal (Per MSHELIA, J.C.A) had this to say: “Appellant has violated the provisions of Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution. The consequence is that appellant has to mandatorily vacate his seat as member in the House of Representatives.”
7. It was perhaps in pursuance of these obvious pronouncements of the highest courts of the land, interpreting Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, that the remaining members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the other authorities (including the Governor of Rivers State who swore to uphold the Constitution) had treated the group of 27 as ex-members of the House. Hence, it could be seen that there were solid legal grounds to treat the defectors as no longer members of the House. Finally, in all the cases mentioned above, relating to defection, the remaining members of the House had declared the seats of the defectors vacant and proceeded to treat the defectors as having lost their seats. In each of those cases, it was the defectors who had gone to court to challenge the declaration of their seat vacant. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Supreme Court has altered the law, now directing defectors to continue as lawmakers pending resolution of their legal status. This is because, following the peace process facilitated by President Tinubu, Governor Fubara and his camp had withdrawn all affidavits and processes they had filed in court and in which all evidence of defection were contained. Unfortunately, the other party refused to abide by the peace deal choosing instead to proceed with their cases which carefully shielded from the court’s facts and evidence of defection and legal consequences threreof! So, it appears the other party had only used the peace process as a ploy or gimmick to get Governor Fubara to withdraw his papers from court, after which their cases then went on unchallenged. In its judgement on 28 February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that “Governor Fubara withdrew his counter-affidavit at the lower court in the matter and as such cannot commence an appeal in a matter, he did not challenge at the trial stage.” [See: “Supreme Court Bars CBN From Releasing Rivers Allocations, Asks Amaewhule-Led Lawmakers To Resume Sitting” 28 February 2025; Punch]
8. In line with the directive of the Supreme Court on 28 February 2025, the group of 27 are to resume sitting while their LEGAL STATUS (which the Supreme Court shockingly and most unfortunately failed to address) is being determined. It would have been more appropriate if the Supreme had directed the legal status of the group of 27 to first get determined before asking them to resume sitting. But the Supreme Court has said its own; all parties have only one choice: to obey.
9. However, as one who loves to face REALITY rather than living in self-deceit or self-denial, my humble and honest understanding of the situation in Rivers State after the 28 February 2025 judgment is that it would be practically difficult for the group of 27 to effectively participate in performing the functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly UNLESS and UNTIL all relevant questions surrounding their LEGAL STATUS (that’s, whether they are still or no longer members after defection) are fully resolved as directed by the Supreme Court.
10. Happily, these questions (about their legal status) have been raised and are currently being considered by the Federal Court sitting in Port Harcourt, which had earlier suspended proceedings to await the 28/02/2025 judgments of the Supreme Court. See this:
“A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has adjourned a matter seeking interpretation on the status of the embattled Rivers State House of Assembly members led by Speaker Rt. Hon. Martin Amaehule. The court, presided over by Justice E. A. Obile, adjourned the matter till April 30, 2025, for the adoption of the parties’ written addresses. Justice Obile’s decision was based on the fact that similar cases are pending before the Supreme Court. He said that the Federal High Court would not share jurisdiction on pending matters with the apex court of Nigeria. The judge assured the counsels that hearing notices would be served on them after the Supreme Court dispenses with the cases before it. Justice Obile said, ‘It is important to await the decisions of the Supreme Court to know the extent of its decision. Besides, this court would not share proceedings with the Supreme Court'” [See: “Justice Obile: Federal High Court Won’t Share Jurisdiction With Supreme Court On Rivers Assembly Matter”; 17 February 2025; TheNigeriaLawyer)
11. Now, with the much-awaited judgments of the Supreme Court delivered, among other things, expressly acknowledging that none of the judgments of the Supreme Court has touched on the LEGAL STATUS of the group of 27, and also authorizing a court-determination thereof, the ball is now in the court of the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, presided over by my Lord, Hon Justice E. A. Obile. I repeat my submission, that until that case is decided one way or the other, it would be practically impossible for Hon Amaewhule and Co to be able to effectively discharge the functions of the House without the other parties, at each turn, raising objections and other issues about their legal status which is yet to be court-determined as reportedly directed by the Supreme Court.
12. With due respect, I repeat that asking them to resume sitting when their legal status hasn’t been resolved is like asking a Court of Law whose statutory jurisdiction is being challenged to resume and continue sitting until objections to its jurisdiction are resolved/determined. It’s a strange principle now being laid down by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. One is unable to understand the legal bases for such a placing-the-cart-before-horse pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, a court whose pronouncement is supposed to inspire, rather than retard, hope and confidence. But I will leave it at that; after all, the Supreme Court itself has admitted that its justices are not infallible although the finality of their decisions make them infallible meaning no further appeal can be made. Its decisions – right or wrong, perverse or not, bizarre or not – remain binding upon all unless and until either OVERRRULLED by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment or otherwise REPEALED by a subsequent legislation. Parties have no choice even if many think that Supreme Court of Nigeria appears to have become an all-in-one: (A) The Lawmaker-in-Chief of Nigeria; (B). The Law Enforcer-In-Chief of Nigeria; and (C) The Interpreter and Adjudicator-in-Chief of Nigeria, all rolled together into one.
13. At this juncture, with due respect, one has begun to wonder whether all actions and decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria are still being guided by the Constitution. Does the Nigerian Constitution still apply to the Supreme Court of Nigeria? Has the Supreme Court of Nigeria become a law unto itself having the liberty to hand down judgements without considering the words and limitations imposed by the Constitution? Is the Supreme Court excluded from being guided by the Constitution? I ask because, by virtue of Section 1 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, the Nigerian Constitution is said to be Supreme as a result of which its provisions must have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which of course includes the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Thomas Jefferson once described the Constitution of a country as a “chain” binding every person and authority in that country. Thus, as I have earlier said, “pending an amendment or repeal of the Constitution as it is, all and sundry are in duty bound to observe its provisions which remain binding on all powers and principalities within Nigeria, however highly or lowly placed. As advised by George Washington, the Constitution is the ultimate guide which we must never abandon. Said A.E. Samaan, ‘The U.S. didn’t achieve its liberty or prosperity by mistake. It was by design, and the architects were the Founding Fathers. Rights given by fad and fashion are just as easily taken away. Let no one mess with the Constitution. The Constitution matters.’ Abraham Lincoln put it this way: ‘Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.’_ [See: Sylvester Udemezue and Vivien Anukanti, “The Convention-Constitution Standoff: Resolving the Most-Senior-Judge Conundrum in Appointment of Substantive Chief Judges for States in Nigeria” (2021) 3, Calabar Journal Of Public And International Law, (University Of Calabar) 237].
14. One wonders whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has forgotten its own words in the case of MARWA V. NYAKO (2012) LPELR-7837(SC) where Adekeye, J.S.C (pp. 169-170, paras. B-F) & pp. 169-170, paras. B-F) had this to say:
“The Constitution is described as the grund norm and the fundamental law of the land. All other legislation in this country take their hierarchy from the provisions of the Constitution. It is not a mere common legal document. It is an organic instrument which confers powers and also creates rights and limitations. It regulates the affairs of the nation state and defines the powers of the different components of government as well as regulating the relationship between the citizens and the state. … The provisions of the constitution take precedence over [everyone and everything]”.
15. With due respect, prevailing circumstances as they relate to the Supreme Court of Nigeria have recently forced me to take the respectful position, expressed in an earlier commentary, aa follows:
“…henceforth, whenever anyone asks me, ‘What is the law in Nigeria?’, I will just answer thus: ‘Wait for the Supreme Court to tell us because the Supreme Court is now: The Legislature (making, amending and repealing laws, with impunity); The Executive (enforcing laws and making executive decisions, with impunity); and The Judiciary (interpreting laws, settling disputes and imposing punishments). An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing, all-in-one Supreme Court of Nigeria, with absolute powers to make, amend, repeal, replace or outrightly disregard laws (no matter how clear); to interpret the law; and to enforce the law, all at the same time. With due respect, I hail oooooooo. But [then], what has happened to the essential characteristics of law or of a functioning legal system: Consistency; Creditability; Uniformity; Certainty’. Answer: ‘All appear now to have been swept aside, or under the carpet. Henceforth, one doesn’t know, won’t know and can’t know what the law is on anything, in Nigeria, until the Supreme Court speaks! [So, p] lease, just sit and wait for the Supreme Court of Nigeria to tell you what the law is, in all cases and in all circumstances”_ [See: “THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA AS ALL-IN-ONE: THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL COURT, ALL AT THE SAME TIME??” By Sylvester Udemezue; 05 March 2023; BarristerNG; lawParliament; Triplenet]
(B) WAY OUT
Now, in view of the aforesaid, and in the interest of peace, democracy and the rule of law in Rivers State, I have the following pieces of suggestions and advice for the following parties even though the judgment of the Supreme Court must be obeyed:
(i) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 𝐎𝐟 𝟐𝟕 𝐇𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬:
1. Please, dear Honorables, I think you need to tread cautiously because the ground upon which you stand is not yet absolutely and legally holy as in secure. With due respect, you had caused all these problems because you had on your own voluntarily defected to another political party on 11 December 2023, knowing the legal consequences. Or, your lawyers should have advised you on the legal consequences of your said action; if they did, you should not have been in a hurry to cross-carpet at a time when your party had no fictionalisation or merger arrangements at the national level. I agree with respected Femi Falana, SAN, that you had acted without sound legal advice.
2. Obviously, with your majority number, you had everything under your control until 11 December 2023 when you voluntarily and surprisingly defected. Your lawyers should have advised you that the position of the law in Nigeria is that one is fully and legally accountable for all legal and reasonable consequences of one’s DELIBERATE actions. Unfortunately, after defection, you are now running from pillar to post blowing hot and cold in an attempt to have your cake and eat it, and thereby throwing Rivers State into unnecessary political and governance logjam.
3. Dear group of 27, ordinarily, going by extant laws as affirmed by the Supreme Court, you had MANDATORILY and AUTOMATICALLY (meaning instantly) lost your seats in the Rivers State House of Assembly the moment you defected to another political party on 11 December 2023. Evidence of your defection is everywhere. Besides, as we can see on the internet, you on your own had on several occasions and forums, admitted your said defection. Videos of your defection and of you acknowledgement of your defection and of the affidavit deposed by you admitting your defection and of all uncontroverted reports of your defection, are available everywhere.
4. Although you had initially defended/justified your defection by saying (a) “There is crisis in Rivers State PDP”; (b) There is legal dispute (court cases) over the position of PDP’s national secretary”; and (c) ” We defected to key into Mr President’s Renewed Hope Agenda”, you and I and your lawyers know that none of these grounds is a constitutionally recognized ground for defection of a lawmaker in Nigeria. Hence, in my opinion, the law requiring automatic/instant loss of your seats applies notwithstanding your said reasons for defection.
5. Perhaps, it was upon your realization that your had no genuine constitutional grounds for your defection, that you turned around at the eleventh hour to start saying that “We never defected”, an action I respectfully see as an afterthought. You recall Bob Marley’s immutable words: “You can fool some people sometimes; you can fool some people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time”. I humbly think it’s difficult for your retraction to convince anyone who had watched all the video evidence of your defection as well as seen other evidence thereof.
6. Although some yet-to-be-identified arsonists had set the House of Assembly of Rivers State ablaze thereby probably destroying copies of all the 27 letters of defection which your leader, Hon Amaewhule had read out on the floor of the House on 11 December 2023, it is important to recall with happiness that in this jet age, the internet no dey forget. Besides, evidence taken from the internet, if relevant, is admissible judging by Section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011, as affirmed in many Supreme Court cases. Besides, you can see that the other parties (including House members and the Governor) had insisted, and rightly in my view, that you had actually defected and thereby INSTANTLY lost your 27 seats. Would you blame them? You had played into their hands; it’s like one voluntarily submitting oneself to be slaughtered. Volenti Non Fit Injuria applies also, meaning that, as I have said, you brought all these upon yourselves because you should never have defected at the time you did. The law on defection and its legal consequences, is clear! Having researched extensively on all issues surrounding the current imbroglio in Rivers State, I hold the humble view, that ordinarily, a court pronouncement is unnecessary for loss of a legislator’s seat upon his VOLUNTARY defection to another political party. The law is too clear on this to create any doubts: when you defect, you automatically (instantly) lose your seat in the House. Thereafter, all that is required of the non-defecting members is, through their presiding officer, to declare your seat vacant and thereafter in writing, to invite the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct by-election to fill the vacancy created by the instant loss of your seat. See Section 109(1)(g)&(2) of the Nigerian Constitution. At that point, if you (the affected defector) feels aggrieved, it’s you (the defector) who should go to court to challenge the actions of your ex colleagues who now treat you as a former member of the House. This is what had happened in most if not all, of the defection cases of the past in Nigeria, including Dapianlong v Dariye, AG FEDERATION V ABUBAKAR, ABEGUNDE V OSHOA. However,
7. However, because of the needless disputes and the parallel lines maintained by the parties, so many issues (which were not originally there) have now been thrown up for court-determination: (1) Did 27 legislators defect on 11 December 2023 or are the pieces of evidence testifying to their defection mere daydreams? (2). If the group of 27 did defect on 11/12/2023, is their defection legally, constitutionally justifiable on any ground? (3) And if not, what is the legal effect of their defection? Perhaps this is why the apex court has directed that the matter be resolved by a court to leave no one in doubts. As the court pleases.
8. Dear Hon Amaewhule and co, sirs, you know that if the court finds that you defected and that your defection is legally unjustifiable, the result is that you would be taken to have lost your 27 seats on 11 December 2023, meaning you had since then lost the right to sit as members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State. So, as it stands now, even the Supreme Court judgment of 28 February 2025 acknowledges that your LEGAL STATUS is in still undetermined, following the parallel positions taken by both parties. Accordingly, I advise you, that your group (panel of 27) in the Rivers State House of Assembly is like a judge or a Court of law whose STATUTORY JURISDICTION is being questioned, disputed.
9. Issues regarding whether members of the group of 27 have or have not lost their seats and the right to participate in the businesses of the House of Rivers State may hence (I respectfully submit) be likened to issues relating to whether or not a judge or a court of law has jurisdiction (qualification) to sit; such issues are fundamental because lack of jurisdiction is fatal to anything the Court does, just as lack of legal standing is fatal to whatever a person does as a legislator, I submit. See OTUKPO v. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR (669) 507; BRONIK MOTORS v. WEMA BANK (1983)6 S.C. 158; and OMOKHAFE v. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR (2005) 2 MJSC 173.
10. One major aspect of jurisdiction of a Court of law (I respectfully submit this should apply to panels such as the Panel of 27 (group of 27) in the Rivers State House of Assembly is Qualifications of the Members. See: the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 589. Besides, Section 99 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that “Any person who sits or votes in a House of Assembly of a State knowing or having reasonable grounds for knowing that he is not entitled to do so commits an offence and is liable on conviction to such punishment as shall be prescribed by a Law of the House of Assembly.”
11. From the all the aforesaid, the REALITY (I humbly submit) is that if members of the group of 27 are found to lack the LEGAL STANDING or QUALIFICATION to sit as members, their participation in House affairs would be a nullity and any action they take as members would be considered a complete nullity, meaning it has no legal effect regardless of how well-conducted the action may have been; essentially, the entirety of their action would be deemed void from the beginning due to the fundamental flaw of lacking the legal authority (LEGAL STANDING) to take such an action. This is why it’s both curious, I most respectfully submit, that the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 28 February 2025, directed the same group of 27 members whose LEGAL STATUS as members were being disputed, challenged to resume sitting pending determination of their legal status. With due respect, such a decision by the Supreme is against the letters of the Nigerian Constitution, which the Supreme Court itself has upheld in the cases of AG Federation V ABUBAKAR and DAPIANLONG V DARIYE. Besides, the directive by the Supreme Court violates extant laws in Nigeria as upheld by the Supreme Court.
12. While discussing the fundamental nature of the legal authority of a Court to sit, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of SANUSI V. AYOOLA (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 265) 275, per Ogwuegbu, JSC, held that where there is any defect in competence of a court to sit, such a defect is fatal to the proceeding of the court, however well conducted and decided they may be. The Court then declared that in such a case, “It is immaterial however sympathetic the cause or application may seem.” It was my Lord, Hon Justice Kekere-Ekun, JCA (as she then was) while delivering the lead judgment in MADU V MBAKWE (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1095) 293, who said: “…where there is any feature of a case that might affect the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate, and neither of the parties raises it, the court has a duty to raise the issue suo motu and invite the parties to address it. This is because where the court lacks jurisdiction, the proceedings, no matter how well conducted would be a nullity. As stated earlier, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of a cause or matter because it is the foundation of the court’s competence.”
13. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the issue of jurisdiction (legal qualification to sit) is an all so important one, which must be decided before the Court can proceed into the merit of the matter. The Supreme Court in the case of ZAKARI V NIGERIAN ARMY (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt 1487) p 77 at 88, “Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law without which the action being like an animal drained of its blood, ceases to be alive. Bereft of any blood in it and indeed without life, any effort at resuscitating it remains
a futile exercise.” Applying these to the present case, I humbly submit that: (a) determination of the LEGAL STATUS (legal authority) of the group of 27 to continue to sit as members after their defection in the Rivers State House of Assembly is like determination of the power or jurisdiction of a judge or a court of law to sit over a matter. It’s respectfully further submitted that the Supreme Court was wrong to have asked the group of 27 to resume sitting until their jurisdiction to sit is determined. Instead of directing them to resume sitting, the Supreme Court, having raised the issue of defection and its effect on the legal status of the group of 27, should have gone ahead to either (a) determine their legal status which would have settled all these wahala once and for all; or (b). (if it couldn’t do it because of the nature of the reliefs before it), to order their LEGAL
STATUS to first be resolved in Court in order to determine whether they’re still entitled to continue to sit as members of the House.
14. With due respect, ordering them to resume sitting pending when their legal status is determine, is like placing the cart before the horse, which leaves the turmoil in Rivers State unresolved since all else depends on determination of their legal status. I repeat that what the Supreme Court has done in respect of Rivers State is like the Supreme Court asking a Judge whose legal qualification to sit as a judge is being challenged, to resume sitting until the determination of the judge’s legal status? Is the right procedure not to resolve or direct the objection to the legal qualification of the judge to be first determined? Well, as the Supreme Court pleases. However, it’s clear (I submit) that this logjam remains unresolved until the legal status of the group of 27 is determined with finality.
15. With due respect, it’s shocking that the Supreme Court failed to address the issues the Supreme Court raised about the LEGAL STANDING of the group of 27 to participate in the businesses of Rivers State House of Assembly before directing them to resume sitting. “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). As I have earlier said, issues pertaining to their LEGAL STANDING are fundamental because they go to their qualification to continue to sit as legitimate members of the House. Determination of their legal status will reveal whether they have the legal authority to continue to sit.
16.Based on the foregoing, it’s wise that Hon Amaewhule and his group of defectors must desist from engaging in any actions that could overheat Rivers State, unless and until the final determination of their legal status. My humble advice is that while sitting in line with the apex court’s directive, they should exercise patience and allow the Courts to make relevant pronouncements on their legal status because any attempt to overheat Rivers State might be met with fresh legal objection to their LEGAL STANDING/QUALIFICATION.
17. In the meantime, dear group of 27, it’s time to get set with your legal defence-shield against the legal battles that lie ahead; it’s not yet Uhuru. Questions about defection and its legal effects have been evaded for long, especially by your group. Now, the chicken have come home to roost; the group of 27 have no choice than to face the same REALITY they have been running away from, namely addressing the issue of their defection and its legal consequences. I have always said it, that one may successfully evade or ignore THE REALITY but one can’t successfully ignore or escape the consequences of ignoring or evading THE REALITY. After all the rigmarole and hide-and-seek, all parties must now return to face the question of defection to resolve it. The resolution of these issues would signal an end to the present logjam in Rivers State. Until then, no victor, no vanquished yet. My humble opinion though.
(ii). 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐎𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞:
1. With the declaration of the Supreme Court, the coast is now clear for you to assemble your arsenals, put your acts together and assemble all pieces of evidence of the said defection of the group of 27 on 11/12/2023, and present the same to the competent court of law and thereafter ask for relevant orders to be made by the Court in line with the provisions of the Constitution, to resolve all disputes once and for all.
2. Meanwhile, you have to obey the Supreme Court orders pending resolution of the legal status of the group of 27. Happily, part of a Statement signed on its behalf by the State’s Hon Commissioner for Information, the Rivers State Government had said thus on 01 March 2025, in reaction to the 28 February 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court:
“We have taken note of reports in the media regarding the recent judgement of the Supreme Court concerning the funds of Rivers State and the administration of local governments. At this time, we are awaiting a detailed briefing on the implications of the judgment. We will carefully evaluate the situation and determine the next steps to take in the best interest of Rivers State and its people. We believe that the determination of the main issue of defection of the 27 lawmakers is a matter not before the Supreme Court as it is pending at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt. Since the issue of defection wasn’t on the table before the learned Justices, in their eyes, Amaewhule and the 26 others are still operating as lawmakers until that matter of defection comes before them. We assure you that we remain committed to upholding our mandate to protect the best interest and the rule of law in all matters affecting our dear state.”_ [See: “DEFECTION OF AMAEWHULE, OTHERS YET TO BE DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT’ – RIVERS GOVT”; 01 March 2025; citylawyermag.blogspot]
3. It is my humble advice that you should immediately re-present the 2025 budget but now before the group of 27 led ny Hon Amaewhule, since budget presentation was the gravamen of the Supreme Court decision on 28 February 2025.
4. Meanwhile, even though you are under an obligation to obey the Supreme Court judgment, you are nevertheless entitled to legally raise objections to any actions of the group of 27 on grounds that their legal status which is fundamental, is not yet resolved. Meanwhile, all such objections and any actions you take must be lawful and done according to due process of law. It was Pope John Paul II who said that “Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.”
5. As the case is already before the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, please go there and present your case (unless there’s cause for fresh legal actions), while relating with Amaewhule and co as directed by the apex court.
(iii). 𝐌𝐲 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬:
1. The Federal High Court of Nigeria can now see that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has cleared the path for the FHC to proceed to determine the legal status of the group of 27 led by Martins Amaewhule. No more excuses! Determination of their legal status is fundamental to restoration of peace, calm, normalcy and the rule of law in Rivers State.
2. Thus, in the interest of the good people of Rivers State, it is respectfully suggested that the lawsuit pending before the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State should be brought forward and granted an accelerated hearing to be heard from day to day until final judgment. The ball has shifted to the FHC’s court, to do justice to the case according to law and the Constitution. All parties would be bound by the court’s decision.
3. At this juncture, I respectfully draw attention of all stakeholders to the commencement of the Abstract to a learned paper by Sylvester Udemezue (it is self-explanatory):
“After centuries of informal methods of dispute resolution in Nigeria, the judiciary as the third arm of government became the formal institution for settling disputes with the advent of the colonial masters. This led to high public expectation that the courts would always dispense justice with utmost effectiveness and swiftness; the court is thus seen as the temple of justice, the last hope of the common man. Ironically, the system of justice delivery in Nigeria is abysmally slow, leading to widespread public disenchantment and loss of confidence, which in turn leaves many citizens looking elsewhere for “justice”. The result is that lawlessness and self-help are fast overwhelming respect for rule of law and due process, which is not surprising as, naturally, loss of confidence in the justice sector is a recipe for anarchy.”_ [See: Sylvester C. Udemezue, ‘Snail-Paced Justice Dispensation In Nigerian Courts: Factors and Actors’ in U.D. Ikoni, T.F. Yerima, and P.H. Faga (eds), Judicial Autonomy, Administration of Justice and Contemporary Trends In Development of Legal Profession In Nigeria: Essays In Honour of His Lordship, Hon Justice S.O Itodo (1st, Wisdom Books & Publishing, Makurdi, Nigeria 2023) 511-530. ISBN: 978-978-746-8-3. Online links:<https://ssrn.com/abstract=4314970> or
<http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4314970>]
4. Since the apex court, the Nigerian Supreme Court in its wisdom has declared that the legal status of the group of 27 is yet to be resolved, the Federal High Court before whom is pending the case dealing directly with their legal status should make haste to determine their legal status without any further delays. Further delay is absolutely dangerous; everything else depends on resolution of the legal status of the group of 27. Meanwhile, “Let justice and the rule of law prevail” is my prayer always. For the avoidance of doubts, it doesn’t matter to me how this end; all that matter to me is that this quagmire should get SPEEDILY resolved one way or the other so that the good people of Rivers State can breathe; it’s only fair and just that Rivers State and its people should enjoy peace and tranquillity in their own state. As Walter Savage Landor would say, “Delay of justice is injustice.”
5. I end this commentary by respectfully reproducing two relevant pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, that would help me in advising the Courts to be fast, steadfast and firm in resolving these issues, to avert further wahala in Rivers State: (a). In MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU (2001) FWLR (Part 50) 1779 at 1802, his Lordship, Hon Justice Obaseki, JSC said: “The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. Nigeria, being one of the countries in the world, … which profess loudly to follow the rule of law, gives no room for the rule of self-help by force to operate.” (b). And in AMAECHI V. INEC (2008) 1 SCNJ 1; (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080) 227, Hon Justice PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JSC, made the following declaration: “In all countries of the world which operate under the rule of law, politics are always adapted to the laws of the land and not the laws to politics. Let our political operators allow this time-honoured principle to sink well into their heads and hearts”.
God help Nigeria!
Peace unto Rivers State!
Long live truth, justice and the rule of law. Amen
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Legal Practitioner, Law Teacher, and Proctor of The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
(A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group).
08039136749.
TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com.
(02 March 2025)