The Supreme Court ruled that Rivers Governor Siminalayi Fubara had already destroyed the state capitol before Speaker Martin Amaewhule and 26 other people defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressive Congress (APC).
The Supreme Court ruled in a judgment made by Judge Emmanuel Akomaye Agim that the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeals ruled at the same time that Governor Fobara engages in illegal and unconstitutional activities to subvert the state legislature, violates the Nigerian Constitution, and prevents the expected impeachment of the Opposition Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Law Committee.
The ruling is part of the Supreme Court’s judgment against Governor Fubara on Cross Appeal/CV/1175A/2024, which aims to challenge the early rulings of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The cross appeal is related to the main appeal filed by Rivers State Capitol and Speaker Martin Amaewhule.
The appeal lists River State Government; River National Independent Election Commission; Honors. Justice Adolphus Enebeli (RTD) (Chairman of the Independent Election Commission of Rivers State); Central Bank of Nigeria; Zenith Bank Plc. ; Access Bank Plc. ; Federal Accountant; River State Government (Sir Siminalayi Fubara); River State Accountant General; and Honors. Justice SC Amadi (Chief Justice of Rivers State) is the 1st to 10th respondent.
Fubara asked the Supreme Court to determine whether Articles 102 and 109 (g) of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity validated the lawsuit at the Rivers State Capitol, which was composed of less than one-third of its members, and the actions of the state government.
Judge Ajim said, “The Court of Appeals ruled along with the factual decision in the Court of Appeal’s judgment CA/ABJ/CV/133/20249 (Exhibition RSHA 5) indicated that in 2023, the 8th respondent was elected and sworn in and worried that his political director would be sworn in or sworn in and in 2023, and in 2023, his political director planned another relocation and revoked the state’s action.
“To prevent his impeachment, the 8th defendant took several steps, such as trying to get the National Assembly to exercise the legislative power of the Legislative State of the River State Capitol to prevent the River State Capitol from sitting on the River State Assembly, with its full member or the ruler of the Constitution and the unified member of the United Member belonging to the original quarter of the members and occupying a seat among the 32 members of the State Capitol, detaining the River State Capitol, unloading the clerk and deputy clerk of the River State Capitol, using Caterpillar, bulldozers and other vehicles and equipment traveling on the Earth, demolishing, demolishing and destroying the legislative building of the River State Capitol…”
The Supreme Court also defeated Fubara to prevent the River State Capitol members and other staff “Travel official work from entering the parliamentary building and conduct all these actions by court orders that disobey the interim restraining orders, which were restricted by 27 members of the River State Capitol in the lawsuit.”
It says “This series of actions by the eighth respondent led the Rivers State Capitol to start Litigation No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023 against the National Assembly, the Eighth Respondent, the Federal Accountant, the Police Inspector General and others.
“The fact that the Court of Appeal, at the same time, in its judgment of Appeal No., was the judgment of CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024, was the eighth defendant who admitted to engaging in all these activities.
“It is clear from the above concurrent findings that the Eighth Defendant began to prevent the seats in the River State Capitol, which consisted of the number of members of Chapter 96 of 1999, which was provided by the 1999 Constitution, and the remaining 27 members violated the violations of another party.”
According to the judge, Governor Fobara’s above-mentioned activities were CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 violations and constitutional violations determined by the Court of Appeal in the judgment of the Appeal No.
The court said, “In the context of these simultaneous findings and holdings of the Court of Appeal, in the Appeal No. ca/abj/cv/133/2024, it is reasonable to conclude that, across the Appellant’s reliance on the Constitution, the necessary doctrine must continue to be the ruler of the ruler of the River State Government and continue to rule over the 1999 River State State Ruler and Law.
“A series of illegal activities were carried out through their own recognition, just to prevent the other 27 members of the Rivers State Capitol from participating in the House of Representatives’ lawsuits to enforce their legal legislative obligations of choice of the 1999 Constitution and the democratic government of Rivers State.
“The eighth defendant collapsed the River State Capitol.
“So, there is no doubt that anyone who lost the home due to defection can effectively show up.
“There must be a gathering house for any constitutional process, such as declaring a seat vacant for defection.
“Only the house can declare vacancy defection, not the governor of the country. Even the court cannot do that.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the 27 members of parliament were no longer the House’s claim due to the alleged defection, which was a effort by Governor Fobara to prevent them from participating in the House litigation.
The judge said, “Their names are not shown or suggested now in the register of members of another party, or they have obtained a membership card from the other party.
“The membership register and membership card constitute the only proof of a party membership.
“It is obvious that the second cross applicant and the other 26 members of the River State Capitol remain valid members of the River State Capitol and cannot prevent the eighth defendant from participating in the House of Representatives with four members of the River State Capitol.”
“It cannot be said that the government exists without forming one of the three weapons of the national government under the 1999 Constitution.”
“In this case, the head of the government executive branch chose to collapse, allowing the Legislature to rule without the legislature as a despot. Because the rivers have no government.”
The court said Fubara’s “Fear of impulse in the House of Representatives, it’s not justified his attack on parliament, the Constitution, the river government and the rule of law.
“What the eighth respondent did was to destroy the government because he was afraid of being impeached.”
