The Rivers State governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, according to the Supreme Court, tried to subvert and destroy the government of his state over the palpable fear of being impeached.
A copy of the apex court’s Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgement pronounced recently, obtained yesterday, slammed the governor for behaving like a despot by demolishing the House of Assembly Complex and preventing the 27 lawmakers from sitting.
“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,” the apex court held.
The 62-page lead judgment read by Justice Emmanuel Agim, painted a clearer picture why the justices affirmed Martin Amaewhule as the authentic Speaker of the House of Assembly.
The apex court of the land found that there was no evidence that the 27 members defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) as argued by the governor and his followers.
The court also found that Governor Fubara, who raised the allegation of defection, withdrew it when he retrieved all the documents he filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
According to the governor, he withdrew the processes after President Bola Tinubu brokered peace, but the other party did not withdraw theirs.
The Supreme Court then held that his failure to support the claim of defection with evidence, meant that no defection took place in the eyes of the law, and ruled that the status quo in the House of Assembly must consequently remain.
It further held that the Constitution did not envisage or support Fubara’s position to recognise only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.
“What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8th 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 said activities of the 8th respondent (Fubara) were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024, as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started,” the apex court said.
It continued: “Against the background of these concurrent findings and holdings in the Court of Appeal Judgment in Appeal No.CA/AB)/CV/133/2024, it is reasonable to conclude that the cross appellant’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity is to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State.
“Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 members from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State.”
“The eighth respondent (Fubara) had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise.
“There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place.
“The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery.
“Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise,” it added.
According to the Supreme Court, a government could not be said to exist without one of the three arms that make it up. “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,” it added:
It said further: “The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo.
“It cannot be invoked to justify and protect the illegal actions of the eighth respondent and his despotic rule of Rivers State without a House of Assembly.
“It applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which require the taking of some legitimate extra-constitutional or extra-legal actions to protect the public interest.
“The eighth respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the House of Assembly, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State and the rule of law.
“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person.
“What the eighth respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.
“The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed.
“The said judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.”
It added: “For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.”
“The Rt Honorable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“The Rivers State House of Assembly Should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith,” the court said.
