Alex Enumah writes that the failure of the nation’s apex court, the Supreme Court to ensure justice is served in the worsening political stalemate in Rivers State may threaten the survival of Nigeria’s fourth democratic dispensation.
Come May 29, 2025, Nigeria would be celebrating 26 years of uninterrupted democratic rule; the longest so far in the history of Nigeria. While many pray and work towards the sustenance of democracy in Nigeria and indeed the West African region for the sake of regional peace and development, recent political developments and the increasing but worrisome role of the judiciary especially in the choice of who governs the people seem to threaten this desire and efforts.
A common political cliche in Nigeria today is, “Go to Court”. Political parties and their candidates declared as winners of a glaringly flawed elections with confidence are quick to tell those who actually won the election but declared as losers to go to court, simply because they are confident the courts will deliver judgment in their favour. There’s no gainsaying that some decisions of courts, especially the Supreme Court have continued to lower the image of the judiciary as well as erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Only few years ago, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and former President of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), OlisaAgbakoba (SAN), raised the alarm over the degeneration in the judiciary and warned that if the leadership of the judiciary does not take deliberate steps to redeem itself, the nation may be heading for doom. Agbakoba, while speaking on a television program in March 2023 had said, “I have lost a bit of confidence in what the courts have been doing lately”.
According to him, “There was a time you could say oh, on the facts and the law, this is the likely outcome, today you cannot because there has been all kinds of silly decisions, the most silly was that concerning the President of the Senate, who in order to become Nigeria’s president rushed off to buy the presidential ticket of the All Progressives Congress and that meant he did not take part in the senatorial primary.
“Lo and behold he lost, he now ran back after the horse has bolted. Clearly to anybody who has any brain which the Supreme Court justices might have had and they say no, that the man actually should be the senatorial candidate; that is the most ridiculous decision that I have ever heard that the Supreme Court has delivered”.
The former NBA President lamented that this unpredictable nature of the apex court has made some persons to begin to question the finality of the court. “There is a new school of thinking coming up to say should the Supreme Court really be final, you see what they are causing now, should they be final or should their decisions be subject to parliamentary review. It is an argument that is now growing in judicial circles”.
Even the Senate President, Senator GodswillAkpabio whether consciously or unconsciously few days ago ridiculed the judiciary when he called a female colleague “Court-declared Senator”. While taking a jibe at Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who was protesting the allocation of her seat at the red chamber of the National Assembly, Akpabio had said that Akpoti-Uduaghan was not conversant with the rules of the Senate because she was brought in by the court. “I think part of the problem is when people come from court — court-declared senators— they missed the orientation,” Akpabio was was quoted to have said.
Whether the leadership of the judiciary is aware of these ridicules and waning confidence in the court is one thing and how it is reacting to it is another.
However, it should be noted that the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State, if not well handled could be the last stroke that breaks the camel’s back. Towards the end of last year there was palpable tension in Rivers State when the Federal High Court in Abuja, in two separate judgements halted the release of Rivers State’s allocations from the consolidated accounts and halted the conduct of Local Government Elections. Nigerians, including the NBA had condemned the order of the courts. According to the NBA, a court should not be making an order restraining security agencies from providing security to electorates on any election.
Similarly, many had faulted the court for stopping the release of funds, arguing that it was targeted at disrupting and crippling governance in the state as well as hinder service delivery. Many warned the court not to turn itself as a tool for politicians in disrupting governance because it is actually the grassroots that suffers when funds are withheld; salaries would not be paid, healthcare would be grounded, insecurity and crime would be on the increase because there would be no resources to fight them.
A huge relief however came the way of Rivers indigenes and residents last December, when the Court of Appeal, in its own wisdom set aside the judgements of the trial court. But, the relief evaporated into the air on February 28, following the setting aside of the judgements of the appellate court and restoring the judgements of the two lower courts. The apex court in its superior wisdom claimed to be acting in defense of democracy. According to the Supreme Court, funds would not be released to Governor SiminalayiFubara to govern Rivers State until “he has purged himself” of disobedience of court order mandating him to seek the approval of the House of Assembly led by Rt Hon Martin Amaewhule and 26 other lawmakers who are said to be loyal to the former governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), MrNyesomWike.
The apex court said it took its decision based on the evidence of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal, which affirmed the Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly as the authentic leadership of the house. The apex court held that Fubara violated the law and the rule of law when he presented the 2024 appropriation bill before four members of the house, adding that the governor collapsed the legislature when he chose to work with just four members representing 12% of the state’s constituents. Justice Emmanuel Agim, who read the unanimous judgement of the apex court affirmed the judgement of the Federal High Court which had voided all the actions Fubara took without the approval of the Amaewhule-led faction of the house of assembly.
He subsequently ordered the 27 lawmakers to resume duty as Rivers State lawmakers and should not be hindered in any way in the discharge of their legislative functions.
In addition, the apex court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF) not to release funds accruing to Rivers State until the government complied with the order directing it to seek the approval of the Amaewhule-led assembly before spending money belonging to the state.
The decisions of the apex court has however received mixed reactions; while the FCT minister and his supporters have hailed the judgement, the other side have condemned it describing it as a declaration of legal war against Rivers State. A chieftain of a faction of the APC in the State, EzeChukwuemekaEze, described the day as a black Friday for Rivers State, stressing that the judgement is a war against democracy in the country. Eze berated the apex court for ordering that the Amaewhule-led resume sitting after all the facts of their decamping to APC with the dire consequences of taken such a step.
“For the Supreme Court to ignore these facts and support the illegality of asking Amaewhule to continue sitting is not only unfortunate, wicked, evil, sad, undemocratic and declaration of war against the people of Rivers State and democracy in Nigeria”, he said.
Eze also urged Nigerians not to think that this sad stand against Rivers State is against Governor Fubara but against democracy, adding that Nigerians should arise and defend the country’s democracy. He stressed that “for the Supreme Court to order the CBN to stop forthwith the release of funds due to the State by the FG simply expose that this are all plots not only to serve the thinking of NyesomWike but ensure that the State that lays the golden egg for the development and emancipation of Nigeria is out of existence. The next few days will be very interesting to see how these plots aimed at removing the Governor will play out”, he added.
Similarly, a Niger Delta youth group under the platform, Pan Niger Delta Youth Employment Forum (PANDYEF), condemned the apex court judgement in its entirety, describing it as an economic sabotage on the Rivers people. Spokesman of the group, Chika Art Adiele pointed out that the judgement is capable of breaching peace and order in the state and Niger Delta region.
“The Apex Niger Delta Youths body, is dismayed by the infantile antics of anti democratic forces who’s stock in trade is brewing crisis in a bid to topple the peoples Governor. We firmly condemn this judgement as it is against the tenet of the constitution of Nigeria.
“It is an invitation for war and against equity, justice and fair play. While also condemning the order nullifying the LG polls, for allegedly been reckless and vindictive, PANDYEF lamented that the Justices of the Supreme Court, positioned themselves as a party to the suit rather than impartial arbiter of justice.
“It must be noted that the principle of democracy is surely rooted on sound constitutional pronouncement to establish justice. Therefore any attempt by the enemies of Rivers people to seize power by judicial fiat will be resisted by the Niger Delta Youths.
“We cannot be cowed, neither shall we lay in surrender at the altar of political manipulations of rascals.
“We reiterate boldly, once again, that anyone, no matter how highly placed, will face fierce resistance by the majority of Rivers people,” the statement read in part.
It would be recalled that Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, had based her order restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF) from releasing Rivers allocations on the earlier judgement of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court. Omotosho had while delivering judgement in the suit by Amaewhule challenging the refusal of Fabura to present the 2024 appropriation before his leadership, held that Fubara failed to provide any reason why the budget should not be presented before the Amaewhule-led faction.
At the initial stage of the trial, the governor had defended his action but withdrew it after he had met with President Bola Tinubu, over the Rivers State political logjam. Since he did not refute allegations made against him in the suit, judgement was entered against him. Moreso, the remaining defence of the state government was thrown into jeopardy when Edison Ehie resigned as a member of the State House of Assembly. Justice Omotosho subsequently struck out his defense on the grounds that he lacked locus to defend the suit, not being a party to it anymore.
Meanwhile, the judgement of a Rivers State High Court which sacked the Amaewhule-led faction and declared their seats vacant on account of their alleged defection, was set aside by the Court of Appeal and struck out on the grounds that the State High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the issue of defection.
Recall that the assembly was split between 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike and five loyal to the current governor, and based on an alleged defection of the Amaewhule-led faction from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) that sponsored them to office to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Fubara had presented the state’s 2024 appropriation before the four house members loyal to him after Ehie resigned from the house to become Chief of Staff to the governor.
At this point, it should be stressed that the core of the litigations is the alleged defection of the 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike.
Besides the Rivers State High Court which had dealt with the issue of defection but was set aside on want of jurisdiction, neither the Federal High Court nor the Court of Appeal, which the apex court relied on, made any pronouncement on the validity of the membership of the Amaewhule-led faction of the House of Assembly.
Justice Omotosho had recognized Amaewhule as Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly because the counter affidavit proving he and the 26 others were no longer members of the house was withdrawn by Fubara upon a purported political settlement brokered by Mr President. Every other decision have since been based on this judgement.
But like the Rivers State Government pointed out in its reaction, hope that the issue of the defection would be addressed now rest on a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, which had adjourned hearing on the alleged defection till April, 2025.
This is where Rivers people, Nigerians and the entire globe are now anxiously waiting for. Would the trial court continue with its hearing of the defection or would it conclude that the apex court have dealt with the matter. As some have argued, the court would not be able to say it has conveniently resolved the political stalemate in Rivers State without deciding that the 27 lawmakers defected or not. This is the justice of the case, and the judiciary should not shy aware from this crucial judicial task. The justices must dispassionately look at the evidence before them and in line with the law. Justice they say should not only be served, but must be seen to have been served.
It is the law that legislators and even governors and the president lose their seat if they defect from the party that brought them into office, when there is no divisions in that party. Unfortunately, the country has continued to witness several cross carpeting without consequences, thereby impacting negatively on the country’s rule of law and democracy.
The judiciary should therefore go into the merit of the case (defection) rather than basing their judgement on a suit that was not adequately defended at the trial stage.
Doing so would be in the interest of justice, the good people of Rivers State, Nigeria as a whole and the development of democracy. Recall that the trial court, appellate court and even the apex court all observed that the withdrawal of the counter affidavit by Fubara was detrimental to his case.
Culled: Thisday