An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Chidi Odo, has described as “premature” the judgment of the Federal High Court which barred the Federal Government from releasing allocations to Rivers State......See Full Story>>.....See Full Story>>
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik issued the ruling restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from allowing Rivers State to access funds from the consolidated revenue account. She determined that Governor Similari Fubara’s action of presenting the budget to only four members of the State Assembly violated the 1999 Constitution.
The judge further noted that Governor Fubara’s disbursement of state funds since January, before presenting the 2024 Appropriation Bill to the State Assembly, were unlawful and unconstitutional.
Justice Abdulmalik thus ordered the governor to present the bill to the State House of Assembly, led by Rt. Hon. Martin Amaehwule, and prohibited financial institutions from disbursing funds to the state until the bill was passed.
But in an interview with THE WHISTLER, Odo said the judgment should have been delayed until the Supreme Court issued its final decision on the leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Odo said, “The judgment is premature because the issue of the authentic leader of the Rivers State House of Assembly has not been determined by the Supreme Court. They would have waited for the Supreme Court to make their decision, determining who is the authentic leader of the assembly, before their own.
“Meanwhile, the judgment is not against Fubara; it’s not against the Rivers State government; it’s against the entire Rivers State people, because if you starve them of funds, the state machinery will come to a halt, and everybody will suffer because of one man.
“I think they should have been more careful and circumspect in their decision.
“Remember that the 27 lawmakers said they have resigned and defected to another political party, meaning that there are only four members remaining in the house. It was based on that foundation that Fubara presented the budget to the available lawmakers.
“Constitutionally, you need a two-thirds majority to pass the budget, but because there are no lawmakers, the governor cannot be compelled to do the impossible, which is why he decided on the basis of necessity and allowed the four to pass the budget.
“And I know for a fact that if there is a state of emergency, the law requires him to present the budget to the National Assembly. But given the circumstances of the matter, you cannot blame him, because when there is an emergency, every action is legitimate.
“The judicial process needs to be streamlined; all matters pertaining to the Rivers State government should have been submitted to one court for one final adjudication to avoid conflicting judgments,” he said.
Another legal practitioner, Maxwell Opara, who also spoke to THE WHISTLER, said the judgment further complicates issues in the state.
“I don’t see a reason for the judgment; it is uncalled for. They just used it to compound the problems in Rivers State,” Maxwell told our correspondent.
“You are elected in a political party but decided to decamp; now it has boomeranged, and you start causing trouble. When you decamp, you cease to be a member; it is a constitutional matter.
“When people decamp and only four are left, are you saying that the governor should allow the state to just stay? No, the state must progress.”
Speaking about the judge, the lawyer added, “Moreover, someone has challenged that you are biased; that is enough for you to recuse yourself from the case.
“There is no basis for the judgment. The Federal High Court should have adjourned the matter pending when the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have decided on it,” he concluded.