Nigeria’s Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara challenging the legitimacy of the Rivers State House of Assembly’s leadership.
The court also ordered the governor to pay ₦2 million in costs to the Assembly and its Speaker, Martin Amaewhule.
The ruling, delivered on Monday by a five-member panel led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, marks the end of a legal battle rooted in constitutional violations during the presentation of the state’s 2024 budget.
Background
The conflict began when Governor Fubara presented the 2024 Rivers State Appropriation Bill to only four members of the 31-seat Assembly, bypassing the majority faction led by Amaewhule.
Fubara argued that Amaewhule and his allies had forfeited their positions after defecting from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
However, lower courts ruled that Fubara failed to provide conclusive evidence of the defections, rendering the four-member group insufficient for lawful legislative proceedings.
On October 10, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Abuja admonished Fubara for disregarding constitutional processes. The court emphasized that presenting the budget to a fraction of the Assembly violated Section 96 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which mandates at least one-third of members to form a quorum.
Justice Hamma Barka said, “Four out of 31 members cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute the required quorum for legislative business.”
Constitutional Violations
The Court of Appeal highlighted that the governor’s actions undermined democratic principles and created a precedent for executive overreach.
Similarly, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court ruled against Fubara’s decision to recognize the Ehie-led faction, stressing that the governor lacked legal grounds to sideline the majority of lawmakers. These rulings reinforced the necessity of adhering to constitutional standards, particularly in legislative processes requiring broad participation.
Fubara subsequently approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the lower courts’ decisions. However, during Monday’s hearing, his counsel, Yusuf Ali (SAN), withdrew the appeal, citing that it had been “overtaken by events.”
Lawyers representing the Assembly and National Assembly leadership, including Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and J.B. Daudu (SAN), requested a dismissal with costs, arguing that the case lacked merit.
Justice Abba-Aji dismissed the appeal and upheld the ₦2 million cost order, stating that the withdrawal was unopposed and that the respondents’ requests were justified. The decision aligns with judicial efforts to curb procedures.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional compliance, particularly in legislative-executive disputes. By affirming the lower courts’ positions, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that executive actions must align with democratic norms and legal frameworks.
Legal analysts suggest the case serves as a cautionary tale for public officials attempting to circumvent established procedures for political gain.
The Rivers State controversy highlights the critical balance of power in Nigeria’s democracy, emphasizing that constitutional mandates – such as quorum requirements – are non-negotiable safeguards against authoritarian tendencies.
As noted in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, “The rule of law must prevail over political expediency.”