CORAM

---

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

1. RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

2. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MARTIN CHIKE AMAEWHULE (The Honourable Speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF RIVERS STATE

2. RIVER STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION

3. HON. JUSTICE ADOLPHUS ENEBELI (Rtd) (Chairman, Rivers State independent Electoral Commission)

4. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

5. ZENITH BANK PLC.

.6. ACCESS BANK PLC.

7. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

8. THE GOVERNMENT OF RIVERS STATE (Sir Siminalayi Fubara)

9. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE

10. HON. JUSTICE S. C. AMADI (The Chief Judge of Rivers State)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL REVIEW, LEGISLATIVE POWERS, APPROPRIATION LAW, JURISDICTION, SEPARATION OF POWERS, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case originated from a political crisis in Rivers State where the appellants (Rivers State House of Assembly and Rt. Hon. Martin Chike Amaewhule) filed an originating summons at the Federal High Court (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024) against the respondents, seeking to prevent the Central Bank of Nigeria and Accountant General of the Federation from releasing funds to the Rivers State Government without a valid Appropriation Law passed by the properly constituted Rivers State House of Assembly.

The case arose from a prolonged political crisis where the Governor of Rivers State (8th respondent) had allegedly engaged in activities to prevent the properly constituted Rivers State House of Assembly from sitting, including destruction of the Assembly complex, arranging for only 4 members (out of 32) to sit as the Rivers State House of Assembly, and presenting the Appropriation Bill to these 4 members who passed it into law. The appellants contended this was unconstitutional and a violation of Sections 96, 120, and 122 of the Constitution.

The Federal High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, but the Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and struck it out. However, on the merits, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Supreme Court held that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 under Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 287(2) and (3) of the Constitution.

3. The Court rejected the application of the doctrine of necessity and Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution to validate proceedings of a House of Assembly with only 4 members out of 32.

4. The Court affirmed that Rt. Hon. Martin Chike Amaewhule was the legitimate Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

5. The Court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria and Accountant General of the Federation to stop releasing funds to the Rivers State Government until a proper Appropriation Law is made by the validly constituted Rivers State House of Assembly.

6. The Court directed that all 32 elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting forthwith.

7. The Court ordered the 1st and 8th respondents to pay costs of 5 million naira to the appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly held that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024?

2. Whether Ss.102 and 109(g) of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity give validity to the proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by less than one third of all the members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the actions of the Government of Rivers State on the basis of such proceedings?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – CHALLENGING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

---

The claim for these reliefs give the trial Federal High Court the jurisdiction to entertain and determine Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 by virtue of S.251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over ‘any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.’ – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS – POWER OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT

---

The trial Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit to enforce compliance with its earlier judgment or the judgment of any superior Court in Nigeria by virtue of S. 287(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which provides that – ‘(2) The decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by Courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Court of Appeal. (3) The decisions of the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court, a High Court and all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other Courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction…’– Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

CENTRAL SUBJECT OF SUIT – RELEASE OF FUNDS WITHOUT VALID APPROPRIATION LAW

---

It is glaring from the reliefs claimed for in the originating summons, the questions raised for determination therein and the affidavits in support of the originating summons that the central subject of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 is whether Central Bank of Nigeria (4th respondent herein) and Accountant General of the Federation (7th respondent) can validly release funds belonging to Rivers State to the Rivers State Government without a valid Rivers State Appropriation Law or can be restrained from releasing funds belonging to Rivers State to the Rivers State Government without a valid Rivers State Appropriation Law. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

QUORUM REQUIREMENT FOR STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY – CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE

---

4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot by any stretch of imagination constituted required quorum for transacting a legislative business of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The conduct of the Appellant in presenting the Appropriation Bill to 4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is a gross violation of Section 91 of 1999 Constitution as amended he swore to uphold when he took the oath of office and oath of allegiance of the Constitution. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (as quoted by the Supreme Court)

 

---

IMPORTANCE OF LEGISLATURE IN DEMOCRACY – PROTECTION AGAINST AUTOCRACY

---

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’), the power to make laws for the Federation or the subnational entities is vested in the legislature. As the history of this nation has shown since independence, the parliament which is the legislative arm of government has always been the primary subject of attack during military incursions into governance. Getting the legislature out of the way permits the enthronement of military dictatorship which then imposes its rule with decrees and edicts without any input from the people being governed. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (as quoted by the Supreme Court)

 

---

REPRESENTATION IN LEGISLATIVE HOUSES – CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

---

Pursuant to Section 91 of the Constitution, representation in the House of Assembly of the State is based on constituencies delineated in such a manner and divided in a way to reflect, as far as possible, nearly equal population, to ensure that each part of the geographical entity involved is covered. It therefore implies that by encouraging four members of the Rivers State House of Assembly out of thirty-two to constitute the basis for legislative activities the Appellant as Governor of Rivers State was operating with 12.5% of the entity constituting Rivers State. – Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA (as quoted by the Supreme Court)

 

---

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY – IMPROPER INVOCATION FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS

---

The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be invoked to justify and protect the illegal actions of the 8th respondent and his despotic rule of Rivers State without a House of Assembly. It applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which situations require the taking of some legitimate extra constitutional or extra legal actions to protect public interest. – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFECTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF POLITICAL PARTIES – NON-JUSTICIABILITY

---

The law is trite that the Court will not inquire into the membership of a Political party being their internal affair. In ENANG v. ASUQUO (2023) 11 NWLR (PT. 1896) 501 this Court held that membership of a political party is a matter that is strictly within the domestic affairs of a political party and the Courts have no jurisdiction to determine who the members of a Political party are. It is not justiciable. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

DEFECTION AND VACANCY DECLARATION – LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

---

The only competent authority to declare the seat of a member vacant for defection, is the legislature to which he or she belongs. This is because the matter is within the Legislative competence of the legislature. Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution is not self executing. The allegation of defection must be presented before the House in session. If the House is satisfied that a member has defected, it declares his or her seat vacant. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

RULE OF LAW AND OBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS – FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY

---

My Lords, democracy is anchored on the rule of law not on the rule of might. A Court system cannot be maintained without the willingness of parties to abide by findings and orders of a competent Court until reversed on appeal. The posture of the Appellant to the effect saying ‘I do not like the order made and I will not obey it’ has to be condemned in the strongest terms if we are not to say good-bye to democracy predicated on the Rule of Law and not the rule of might. – Per ABANG, JCA (as quoted by the Supreme Court)

 

---

THREE ARMS OF GOVERNMENT – NECESSITY FOR PROPER FUNCTIONING

---

A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the Government of a State under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Head of the Executive arm of the Government has chosen to collapse the Legislature to enable him govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.” – Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

 

---

COURT’S DUTY IN DISPUTES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT ARMS – JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

---

The duty of the Court to declare on a violation of the provision of the Constitution arises only where there is a dispute before it brought by legitimate disputants who would be affected by the illegality complained of… Whenever, in pursuance of an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one individual against another, there is presented a question involving the validity of any act of any legislature, State or Federal, and the decision necessarily rests on the competency of the legislature to so enact, the Court must, in the exercise of its solemn duties, determine whether the act be constitutional or not…– Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC (as quoted by UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.)

 

---

PUBLIC FUNDS – CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISBURSEMENT

---

Since this Court pronounced in the lead judgment that the use of 3 members to perform the Constitutional role of 32 members is unconstitutional, in the same breath, we roundly condemn making funds available to the Rivers State Government in the absence of a valid appropriation law made by the Rivers State House of Assembly as prescribed by the Constitution. It will be absurd to continue funding the same Government to continue this unconstitutional act in perpetuity. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Sections 1(1), 1(2), 4, 91, 96, 102, 109(1)(g), 120(2)(3)(4), 121, 122, 197, 251(1)(r), 287(2)(3)

2.  Financial Year Act

3.  Rivers State Local Government Election Tribunal Law, Section 10

4. Court of Appeal Act 2004, Section 15

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT