6, March 2025
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The recent Supreme Court verdicts on some of the lingering, clearly unnecessary political cases emanating from Rivers State may not end the imbroglio.
The judgments are the path of peace, rule of law and constitutional democracy; but the Supreme Court cannot come down to Rivers State to force the parties to embrace peace, and work together in harmony for the benefit of the state and its peoples.
The two sides to the crises are still issuing press statements, and considering the options open to them. The members of the State House of Assembly are issuing directives and giving orders, as if they have won; but there is no victory to either side until there is peaceful conduct of government affairs in the state.
From the public statements, it appears none of the parties is ready to do the needful – to embrace peace, and work harmoniously for the public interest. The state and its peoples are the losers. It becomes necessary to ask some pertinent questions:
What really is at stake in the whole drama?
There is no argument that the political leadership of Rivers State, ostensibly power, together with the appurtenances of power, is the issue at stake. One wonders whether the players have not learnt any lesson so far; at least, they have lost much of the gains of participation for close to two years after election. There is unnecessary tension in the state. They are probably reminding the people that this is not about the people, for obvious reasons, but about few individuals who have seized state power for personal benefits.
For all we care, the basic features of constitutional democracy have long been articulated into the concepts of “equality, sovereignty of the people, respect for human life, the rule of law and liberty of the individual” and the framework in Nigeria is essentially provided for by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. We may not lay claim to equality, sovereignty of the people, and respect for human life, any more in Nigeria; but in the madness, we insist on the rule of law and liberty of the individual.
Thus, after the 2023 election in whatever form it ended, the people expect development and dividends of democracy as of right; and from political participation including, involvement, contribution, etc., in participatory politics. Those elected should participate and let others play their part. Essentially, democracy guarantees participatory politics or popular participation of the people and who, in seeming equality or freely given consent, are involved in representative government. Thus, “the will of a people” can only be achieved by rule of law anchored on the constitution vesting sovereignty on the people in constitutional democracy. Rule of law as a component of democracy encompasses accountability, transparency, crime and punishment, and separation of powers.
This is not what we are seeing in Rivers State, it has apparently failed; and it appears that everyone is law unto himself. According to Carother, the most essential aspect of rule of law supporting constitutional democracy is that ‘the government is embedded in a comprehensive legal framework;its officials accept that the law will be applied to their own conduct, and the government seeks to be law-abiding.’
In other words, without that ethical dimension that government and its officials, seek to be law abiding and do the right thing, there could be no democracy. This is the crux of the matter. These people in Rivers State do not seek to be law abiding and to do the right thing; they prefer physical bravado, in show of might.
Which of the cases have been decided by the apex court, and which ones are still pending?
Although the official reports of the cases decided by the apex court are not yet public, the press statement credited to the HAG of Rivers State, Dagogo Israel Iboroma, SAN, suggests that judgment was delivered in Appeal SC/CV/1701/2024, Governor of Rivers State v Rivers State House of Assembly and 15 others, which emanated from Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, by Martin Chike Amaewhule & Anor, on the 29th day of November, 2023.
The statement gives the impression that at least one of the naughty cases is yet to be determined – the issue of defection of 27 lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly from PDP to APC. According to the statement, the Supreme Court made no order ‘reinstating Martin Chike Amaewhule and 26 others as members of Rivers State House of Assembly, neither did the Supreme Court make any finding on their status as members of Rivers State House of Assembly.’ In other words, one naughty case is still hanging! But the apex court was clear that for now those 27 members of Rivers State House of Assembly should participate in the activities of the Assembly!
From available reports, the Supreme Court nullified the Rivers State Local Government Election which held on 5 October 2024, as it found that the election curiously won in all 23 chairmanship positions by hitherto less known Action Peoples Party (APP) was conducted in violation of relevant laws. The appellant in the appeal, the All Progressives Congress (APC), had rightly argued that the conditions’ precedent was not complied with before the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) held the election .
More interestingly, the Supreme Court also found that it was unconstitutional for the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, not to present the state budget before the full members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, including those who allegedly defected, for the appropriation bill and before spending. For this reason, the apex court affirmed the earlier judgment of the Abuja High Court which restrained statutory allocations to Rivers State, until the right thing was done.
Accordingly, the relevant Federal Government Agencies are restrained from releasing the monthly allocations to Rivers State until they comply with the law on appropriation. The interpretation of the aspect of the judgment directing the Governor to present the Rivers State 2025 Budget to the full House, including those alleged to have defected, appears to unsettle the Governor’s camp and presenting a dilemma to them.
First, the Governor’s camp do not wish to recognise the membership of the 27 lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly alleged to have defected from PDP to APC. That position appears to be a case of self-help, because as discussed hereunder, rather unfortunately, the relevant provisions of the Constitution are silent on the procedure to declare their seats vacant. The implication is that Speaker Martin Chike Amaewhule and the 26 others may feel free to continue as lawmakers until the specific matter of defection is settled by the courts or outside the court, in view of the present developments.
This point is supported by the tacit acceptance by the apex court of the current membership of the defectors in the House of Assembly. A possible explanation of this position of the apex court is that the matter of defection was not before the court. If the matter is sub judice, as the Attorney-General had said, then, it is only logical to let the courts decide, and the Governor cannot resort to self-help by declaring their seats vacant.
In any situation, the Governor, has no choice now but to treat them as members, particularly, in view of the Supreme Court Judgment, and present the budget to the full House. Secondly, the attitude of the 27 lawmakers had been anything but cordial to the Governor or the executive arm – they once threatened impeachment of the Governor, and the Governor had to fight back with the instrumentality of his executive powers. Probably, if he had not done that they would have impeached him. One hopes, they are not back to that point.
Anyhow, the Supreme Court recognition of the 27 lawmakers, without reference to the issue of defection, has given another opportunity for peaceful resolution through dialogue. The parties may wish to let the interest of the state and its citizens dictate the next line of action. On the part of the 27 lawmakers, they must shield the threat of unnecessary impeachment and non-cooperative attitude to the executive arm. There must be respect for institutions. There must be an end to litigation and to crisis in government.
The Governor and his team should accept the judgment as resolving the issues, and learn to work with all the members of the State House of Assembly, including the 27 lawmakers that had defected. This option suggests abandoning the pending case on the defection, and will save the courts the further burden of unending litigation. The Governor will expect in return the cooperation of the 27 lawmakers who must be ready to work harmoniously with the Governor, as a separate arm of government, and with assurance of mutual respect.
It is easy to predict that any attempt by the House of Assembly members to repeat the threat of impeachment will resurrect the case of defection of the members. There is no doubt that under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a lawmaker who defects from the political party under whose platform he/she was elected may cease to be a member of the legislature, in the circumstances described. More specifically, by section 109(1) of the Constitution, ‘a member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if … (g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by one political party, he resigns from that political party or he becomes a member of any other political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected: Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or a merger of 2 or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.’
Section 109(1)(g) is similar to section 68(1)(g) of the same Constitution which applies in the case of members of the National Assembly. Section 68(1)(g) provides that ‘(1) A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if —(g) being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by one political party, he becomes a member of any other political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected: Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.’
These sections have been interpreted in decided cases from Ondo and Cross River states, and the courts agreed to the clear meanings of the sections. The Supreme Court was emphatic on the law in SC. 643/2014, Hon. Ifedayo Sunday Abegunde (Hon. Member, Representing Akure North/South Federal Constituency in the House of Representative) v The Ondo State House of Assembly, decided on 17th day of April 2015.
Perhaps, it is important to state here that the proviso to sections 109(1)(g) and 68(1)(g) of the same Constitution is not helpful in the present and other cases.
By stating that the vacation of the seat is conditioned by membership of the latter political party not being ‘as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored’. This proviso provides a safe ground for defectors as in the case of the lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly and so many other defections in both the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly to unethically defect and hang on to their seats against the spirit and letters of sections 109(1)(g) and 68(1)(g) of the Constitution. They are simply asking Nigerians, including their constituents, to go to court, knowing fully well that the court cases may not be determined until the end of their tenure. The case of Ifedayo Sunday Abegunde was not concluded until years after the tenure of the legislator had lapsed.
This is not healthy for our democracy. It is worthy of note that in the Abegunde case, the Supreme Court took time to review the practice from an historical perspective, noting that the constitutional provisions are punitive and that except in cases covered by the proviso, ‘the fraudulent and malevolent practice of cross-carpeting politicians … who, for financial consideration or otherwise, crossed from one political party to another, without qualms and without conscience. Such a practice had to be discouraged by the framers of our Constitution if political public morality of our country was to be preserved.’
They held that it is manifest from the quoted constitutional provisions that the lawmaker intended to and indeed made punishable the defection of an elected member, from the political party that sponsored him, to another political party before the expiration of the period for which the House was elected by declaring his seat vacant.’ This has remained the position of the courts.The options open to the parties are clear. First and foremost, they must obey the judgment of the apex court. There is no choice in this option, and it is definitely the path to peace, rule of law, and constitutionalism. There should be no further resort to self-help and rule of might, by either group.
The major implication of the present situation is the need for politicians and all Nigerians to observe the rule of law and essentially the tenets of the 1999 Constitution in governance. Most importantly, those in power, particularly, the executive and legislative arms should think ethics in their dealings, and avoid the current impunity, self-help and bravado. On the two sides, there are clear cases of lawlessness, self-help and reign of impunity. One clear implication of the Supreme Court judgments is the apex court’s resolve to deal decisively with the states’ handling of funds and administration of local governments in Nigeria.
(www.naija247news.com)
