CITIZENS COMPASS–A three-member panel of the appellate court in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by the Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, challenging a pro-Wike lawmaker, Martin Amaewhule, as the recognised Speaker of the State House of Assembly.

The Court on Thursday, affirmed that Amaewhule was the authentic Speaker of the Assembly.

It stated that the Appeal filed by Fubara lacked merit.

The court also issued an injunction, restraining Governor Fubara from obstructing the operations of the Assembly under Amaewhule’s leadership and ordered him to release all funds due to the lawmakers.

However, the Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communications, Joseph Johnson, has responded to the judgement promising that the state government would challenge it at the Supreme Court.

According to him, “There’s another level; that’s the Supreme Court. Remember, what went to the Court of Appeal was not the legitimacy of Amaewhule. What went to the Court of Appeal was the judgment of Justice Omotosho, and the ruling of the Court of Appeal was that the withdrawal of our case was because Mr. President directed that we withdraw all court cases.

“So, the judgment they obtained was standing on one leg, but let us believe that the Supreme Court, which is the final court of the land, will do justice to it.

“The truth of the matter is that it didn’t help their case. Amaewhule is still a defected member of the House and the Constitution clearly, expressly states in Section 109 (12) that that is self-executory. When it gets to the Supreme Court, I believe that the truth will be unravelled.

“So, there’s nothing to jubilate about. It didn’t make Amaewhule a member of the House or Assembly, it merely said go and present the budget.

“We know the genesis of the proceedings, but we trust that the Supreme Court, which is the final court, will do justice in this matter.”

Earlier on Thursday, the appellate court upheld the January 22 judgment of the Federal High Court, delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which nullified the 2024 Rivers State budget, amounting to N800bn, on the grounds that it was not properly presented before the members of the state Assembly as required by law.

It held that Fubara’s decision to present the 2024 Rivers State Appropriation Bill to only four out of 31 members of the Assembly was a gross violation of the 1999 Constitution.

Moreover, the court noted that Fubara’s withdrawal of the counter-affidavit he had initially filed to challenge a suit by the Amaewhule-led lawmakers, who sought recognition as valid members of the Assembly, signified that he accepted their claims.

Justice Joseph Oyewole, delivering the lead judgment, stated that since Fubara had withdrawn all processes filed to counter the case at the trial court, he could not claim to be dissatisfied with the judgment.

Justice Oyewole remarked, “By coming to the appellate court, the appellant was being inconsistent, approbating and reprobating, blowing hot and cold at the same time.”

“So, the judgment they obtained was standing on one leg, but let us believe that the Supreme Court, which is the final court of the land, will do justice to it.

“The truth of the matter is that it didn’t help their case. Amaewhule is still a defected member of the House and the Constitution clearly, expressly states in Section 109 (12) that that is self-executory. When it gets to the Supreme Court, I believe that the truth will be unravelled.

“So, there’s nothing to jubilate about. It didn’t make Amaewhule a member of the House or Assembly, it merely said go and present the budget.

“We know the genesis of the proceedings, but we trust that the Supreme Court, which is the final court, will do justice in this matter.”

Earlier on Thursday, the appellate court upheld the January 22 judgment of the Federal High Court, delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which nullified the 2024 Rivers State budget, amounting to N800bn, on the grounds that it was not properly presented before the members of the state Assembly as required by law.

The court also criticised Governor Fubara for failing to adhere to the rule of law.

It held that Fubara’s decision to present the 2024 Rivers State Appropriation Bill to only four out of 31 members of the Assembly was a gross violation of the 1999 Constitution.

Moreover, the court noted that Fubara’s withdrawal of the counter-affidavit he had initially filed to challenge a suit by the Amaewhule-led lawmakers, who sought recognition as valid members of the Assembly, signified that he accepted their claims.

Justice Joseph Oyewole, delivering the lead judgment, stated that since Fubara had withdrawn all processes filed to counter the case at the trial court, he could not claim to be dissatisfied with the judgment.

Justice Oyewole remarked, “By coming to the appellate court, the appellant was being inconsistent, approbating and reprobating, blowing hot and cold at the same time.”

He emphasised that such behaviour had no legal basis, as parties must be consistent in court matters.

The court held that Fubara’s withdrawal from the Federal High Court case was a self-inflicted mistake, which could not be corrected.

The appeal, according to the court, held no merit, as Fubara had already lost his legal standing at the trial court by accepting the claims against him with his withdrawal.

“A party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time; the appellant cannot seek for one thing at the lower court and be seeking for another incongruent and parallel thing in this court. Can the law permit him to blow hot and cold at the same time?

The challenges faced by the appellant in this appeal are self-inflicted and try as one may, it is impossible to see the utilitarian value to be achieved by filing this appeal after withdrawing all processes contesting the action at the lower court and thereby conceding the action. It seems to be purely academic for a party to concede to an action at the lower court and then turn around to challenge same action without any indication of fraud in the presentation of the earlier concession,” Justice Oyewole held.

The court ordered Governor Fubara to re-present the state budget to the House under the recognised Speaker, Amaewhule, in line with Justice Omotosho’s ruling.

The court also prohibited Fubara from withholding funds meant for the House of Assembly and from removing the Clerk and Deputy Clerk from office.

In total, the appeal was dismissed, with the court awarding N500,000 in costs to each of the 1st to 12th respondents.

Justice Oyewole ruled: “In a constitutional democracy, the foundation of every act must be located in the Constitution. Autocracy is out of place in the constitution.

democracy.  I, therefore, resolve this issue against the appellant and in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondent.

“In totality, therefore, this appeal is bereft of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgement of the lower Court is here and affirmed. N500,000 cost is awarded in favour of each of the 1st to 12th respondents respectively and against the appellant.”

Justice Okon Abang, concurring with Justice Oyewole’s decision, held that Fubara’s withdrawal from the trial court’s case indicated that he accepted the judgment and could not appeal against it.

He further criticised the governor for preventing Amaewhule from performing his duties, accusing him of using his executive powers to act in an autocratic manner, which is unacceptable in a democracy.

Justice Abang added, “The appellant, the Governor of Rivers State, treated the court order with disdain, levity, and subject to the discharge of his functions in an unprecedented manner. This is an act of executive lawlessness. The rule of might has no place in a democratic setting.”

He cited the governor’s actions, such as the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly complex on Moscow Road, Port Harcourt,

and his attempt to conduct a sham Assembly sitting with only four lawmakers outside the official premises, as clear violations of the Constitution and court orders.

“The appellant, the Governor of Rivers State, treated court orders with disdain, levity and subject to the discharge of his function in an unprecedented manner. I agree with the 1st and 2nd respondent counsel that these are acts of executive lawlessness.

“The rule of might has no place in a democratic setting. Having sworn to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, the appellant was and is expected to, in his relationship with the 1st and 2nd respondents, apply the rule of law, not the rule of might, in matters affecting the discharge of his functions as the governor of Rivers State.

“The appellant’s show of force and might is heavily demonstrated in the 1st and 2nd respondents’ unchallenged deposition of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the affidavit in support of the motion on notice filed by the first and 2nd respondents

unchallenged deposition of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the affidavit in support of the motion on notice filed by the first and 2nd respondents.

“Any gathering purporting to be Rivers State House of Assembly,  led by any other person other than the 2nd respondent, sits in violations of the order delivered by the trial court dated December 7, 2023 and that person acts in vain.

“Surprisingly, on 13th December 2023, in gross violation of the subsisting order of the trial court, the appellant demolished Rivers State House of Assembly complex at Moscow Road Port Harcourt and secretly arranged four members of the 1st respondent, led by Honourable Edie Ehison, to a place outside the premises of the state House of Assembly and held a sham sitting of the 3rd respondent.

“The appellant also hurriedly presented the Rivers State budget appropriation bill to the said four members purporting to sit as Rivers House of Assembly. The four members thereafter considered, deliberated and passed the budget into law a few hours after the purported presentation.

“The appellant has not said why he acted this way. Apart from t to the subsisting order of the court, the appellant was clearly in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 96 of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, as amended, which quotes: The forum of the House of Assembly shall be members one-third of the House. Four out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute the required forum for transacting the respective business of the River State of Assembly,”