₦airaland Forum

A member representing Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State in the House of Representatives, Hon. Solomon Bob, has described the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s judgement on the crisis rocking the state by human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, as misleading.

Bob in a statement issued yesterday expressed dismay by Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public with respect to the Rivers State crisis.

The lawmaker recalled that on 10th January, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld the judgement of Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit N0: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.

He explained that Justice Omotosho’s judgement, which was delivered on 22nd January 2024, touched on the entirety of the issues at the centre of the crisis, including: leadership and membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly and presentation of the 2024 appropriation law or any presentations to the House of Assembly.

In his judgement, Justice Omotosho ordered, “An order is hereby made restraining the 11th Defendant (Governor Fubara) from howsoever or in whatsoever manner making any request, presentation, or nomination in the Rivers State House of Assembly except to the House of Assembly under the leadership of the 2nd Plaintiff (Speaker Martin Amaewhule).”

The lawmaker was of the opinion that the judgement did not only address the question of the 2024 budget presentation alone, but all subsequent presentations (including that of 2025), requests, or nominations before the Rivers State House of Assembly.

Bob added: “However, the ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, appeared on a television programme to proffer yet another misleading interpretation.

“In his presentation, Mr. Falana claimed that the dismissed appeal related only to the 2024 appropriation law and, therefore, merely academic.

“As the above order shows, Mr. Falana was wrong. He was also downplaying the dire ramifications of spending without an appropriation law.

“He also claimed that the dismissed appeal did not touch on the question of membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“Indeed, virtually all the reliefs sought and granted by the Federal High Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal affirm the subsisting membership of the House of Assembly by the 27 legislators.”

Bob emphasised that by reason of Section 272(3) of the constitution, only the Federal High Court is vested with jurisdiction on any question of vacancy in the seats of a House of Assembly.

He maintained that Justice Omotosho’s judgment remained the only decision by a court with the requisite jurisdiction to have pronounced on the status of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, adding that Falana’s insistence that they have lost their seats was outrageous and lacked legal basis.

Bob said contrary to Falana’s vaunted opinion, Section 109(1)(g) of the constitution is not self-executory.

He noted: “And realistically, under a constitutional democracy, no law is. Because every constitutional provision is ultimately subject to judicial interpretation. To suggest otherwise is to deny the imperative of judicial review.

“I am dismayed by Mr. Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public with respect to the Rivers crisis.”

zero8zero:
Very funny set of lawyers. If the court ruled that spending 2024 budget without the approval of the 27members was illegal, is it the 2025 budget that is the taken before the 4 members that will now be legal?. If they had lost their seats, will the court asked you to present the budget to them?.

Moventist:
That case was before their defection

ehikwe22:
Did the judge give rulings on a case that has been withdrawn? If a case is withdrawn, the judge goes on bench and dismiss it. That has always been practice. Who is trying to deceive who?

Mercisharelove:
Keep quiet

OMEGA009:
Politician wan lecture Senior Advocate on the letters of the law

Hushpuppy20:
Oga you are not a lawyer nau. How can you say what a confirm SAN said is misleading ? Blood don enter where he no suppose enter for your brain.so na your own we go hear abi..

zero8zero:
Why did Fubara appeal the case at the SC and why did he withdraw it on the very day of ruiling?.

ehikwe22:
Did the judge give rulings on a case that has been withdrawn? If a case is withdrawn, the judge goes on bench and dismiss it. That has always been practice. Who is trying to deceive who?

Helpfromabove1:
Which one be this game

Why is the Supreme Court not using simple English words that everyone can understand why play games with words

gabbytabby:
Na common sense now if a case to a higher court is withdrawn then the judgement of the lower court stands.

Housing:
You are very wrong a case that was dismissed had being adjudicated upon and its fate sealed. If the withdrawal was upheld it will be strike out and the applicant can still bring it back to the same court for adjudication. But once it was dismissed that case can't be brought back to the same Court because it had been decided upon .