Supreme Court justifies its reinstatement of Amaewhule-led Rivers Assembly.

A Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court’s decision on the political crisis in Rivers State explains why the court reinstated the Hon Martin Amaewhule-led leadership of the State House of Assembly.

In a 62-page decision acquired by our reporter on Thursday, the supreme court stated unequivocally that there was no evidence to substantiate the accusation of defection brought against the 27 members of the House of Assembly from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress.

In a decision written by Justice Emmanuel Agim, the Supreme Court stated that the Rivers State governor, Siminalayi Fubara, who raised the charges of defection against the 27 members on his own initiative, withdrew them at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

By declining to accept the defection claim against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the Supreme Court determined that no defection occurred under the law, and so the status quo in the House of Assembly must be maintained.

Justice Agim, who endorsed the judgement copy, specifically stated that there cannot be a House of Assembly unless as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, and that the Constitution did not envisage or support Governor Fubara’s position of recognising only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that Governor Fubara should not make any requests, nominations, or presentations to the Rivers State House of Assembly unless it is led by Hon Martin Amaewhule, who is thought to be loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike.

“What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8” respondent (Fubara) began to prevent the sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by the number of members prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose.

The Court of Appeal ruled in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 that Fubara’s conduct were illegal and unconstitutional prior to the alleged defection.

Against the backdrop of contemporaneous findings and holdings In the Court of Appeal Judgement 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 admitted to engaging in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties that 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.

As a result, no genuine question can be raised regarding any member of that House losing his seat owing to defection. Constitutional processes require a House of Assembly.The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House due to a supposed defection is part of his ongoing effort to restrict them from participating in House procedures.

“It is a deceptive act.”Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be used to aid an illegitimate endeavour. Section 102. of the Constitution, which states that “A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings,” cannot be used to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of more than 90% of the members or to justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of a member of the House orAccording to the 1999 Constitution, a government cannot exist without one of the three arms that comprise a state’s government.

In this situation, the Executive branch of government has opted to dissolve the Legislature in order to govern as a dictator. Currently, there is no government in Rivers State.

The theory of necessity cannot justify maintaining an illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be used to justify the illegal actions of the 8″ respondent and his despotic rule in Rivers State without a House of Assembly.

It only applies to genuine situations that require legitimate extra-constitutional or extra-legal actions to protect public interest, which are not covered by the Constitution or any laws.

The 8th respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House Assembly does not justify his attacks on the House of Assembly, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State, and the rule of law. “Political disagreements cannot justify attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person.”

The 8″ respondent destroyed the government due to fear of impeachment. Therefore, Cross-appeal No SC/CV/1175A/2024 is dismissed.

The portion of the Court of Appeal’s judgement affirming the Federal High Court’s decision in Suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed. The Federal High Court’s judgement in Suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is now restored.

“For 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 y the !999 Constitution.

“The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Honourable Martin Chike Amaewhule, and the remaining 26 members should continue their duties without interruption.The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members immediately.