A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, Kunle Adegoke, has said that it was unlikely for the Supreme Court to nullify the judgement of the Appeal Court on the Rivers 2024 Budget.
Adegoke said this during an interview with Arise TV, stating that the ruckus surrounding the state’s N800 billion budget was a matter of “ego and political interest.”
ThisNigeria reported on Thursday that the Appeal Court dismissed an appeal filed by Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers to challenge the lower court judgment nullifying the passage of the state’s 2024 budget.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Joseph Oyewole dismissed the governor’s appeal, describing it as unmeritorious.
Justice Abang, who read judgement on cross appeal, described Fubara as “exhibiting executive recklessness.”
Abang stated that the governor’s actions were “jokes taken too far”, adding that his conduct was “disdainful of the judiciary.”
Reacting to the judgement, Adegoke stated that the appellants’ role in the high court proceedings was taken into account, and that if the Governor Fubara faction had claimed not to have been served with the processes, the outcome might have been different.
The SAN further suggested that it would be prudent to acknowledge the court of appeal’s pronouncement. He stated that the parties involved should converge and accept the decision, allowing the House of Assembly to continue its operations while the court determines the validity of the decamped members’ membership.
He said “This issue is simply a matter of ego and political interest. The individuals involved are dictating everything that is happening, and that is why it would be better at this stage to let us take it that the court of appeal has pronounced. Why would it not be possible for parties to come together and say, ‘At this stage, let us follow the decision of the court of appeal’? Let us allow the House of Assembly, as it was initially composed, to continue its operations while the issue of whether those who have decamped are still valid members of the House of Assembly is determined by the court.
“I mean, this is yet to be determined by the court before which the matter is pending. But I do not see the possibility of the appeal court decision being upturned by the Supreme Court, especially considering the fundamental issues considered by the sound panel that delivered that decision.
“They took into consideration what role the appellants played at the level of the high court when the matter came up. Assuming the appellants could claim that they were not served with the processes that originated the case, it would have been a different thing.”
