TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court nullifies judgment recognising Abure as LP chairman

    BREAKING: Supreme Court nullifies judgment recognising Abure as LP chairman

    The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja recognising Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP).

    In a unanimous judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court held that the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to have pronounced Abure National Chairman of the LP having earlier found that the substance of the case was about the party’s leadership.

    It held that issue of leadership was internal affair of a party over which courts lacked jurisdiction and noted that Abure’s tenure had since expired.

    The court allowed the appeal filed by Senator Ester Nenadi Usman and one other and held that it was meritorious.

    It proceeded to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by the Abure faction of the LP for being unmeritorious.(NAN)

    Details shortly.

  • Rivers: Backlash of a Supreme verdict

    Rivers: Backlash of a Supreme verdict

    By Dakuku Peterside

    In his book “The Power of Regrets”, Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgment that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on?

    Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgment’s repercussions, indeed have the deepest regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life. Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.

    Justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the Judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions about its implications for governance, democracy, and the rule of law.

    A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.

    Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd) led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. In their words, “the judgment of the Supreme Court in the consolidated appeals leaves a gap as to whether the issue of the alleged defection of 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is still alive or has been settled.

    This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it.” This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.

    One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections.

    The Supreme Court verdict in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo. LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election. The only justification given by the apex court is that INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer .

    This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status. Vital social services may be affected .
    Even more curious is the fact that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

    In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions , has plunged the people of Rivers state into financial uncertainty.

    How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.

    The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt.

    The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends.

    Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gas.
    Fubara and Wike, who is fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has given him an opportunity to assert his dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape- real or imagined . After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike has invested time, media appearance and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State “. If Wike has any regrets,they are likely overshadowed by his sense of imperial entitlement .

    Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the apex court ruling. He has repeatedly attempted to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the assembly’s latest attempt to ambush the Chief Judge of the state and hound him out of office.

    While politicians manoeuvre for power, the real victims of this crisis are the ordinary people of Rivers State. Rivers people will be exposed to unprecedented social dislocation, crimes and hardship. The judgment has led to economic hardship due to delayed salaries and disrupted services. Increased crime rates have been fuelled by political instability and financial strain. There has been an erosion of trust in the Judiciary and democratic institutions.

    Furthermore, the judgment risks disrupting Nigeria’s oil revenue. Niger Delta youths and militant groups witnessing the impoverishment of their families while their resources sustain the nation, may resist oil extraction, further threatening national economic stability.

    This is one judgement that, in all respect has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court. Rivers people and the rest of Nigerians cannot understand how the Judiciary in the 21st century Nigeria would allow a baleful manipulation of the processes to allow a clear violation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution by defectors to the point of the Supreme Court rewarding such travesty by punishing the Governor who at all material times has worked to protect and defend the Constitution by his Oath of office.

    The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal .

    In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007 when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions. Instead, this particular ruling has emboldened political actors seeking to privatise the state ,undermine governance, creating an atmosphere where impeachment and humiliation of the Governor appear viable strategies for political gain. The general perception in Rivers State is that the president has unleashed his minister against the people of Rivers State. None of these scenarios benefit the people of Rivers State.

    Thankfully , the Governor had not acted in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all of the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below.

    Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgment of Courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to Orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower Courts.

    When we speak of justice, we reach for the foundation of human existence. Justice is the cornerstone of human togetherness. The rule of law should be a stabilising force, ensuring justice and accountability.

    However, in this case, it has been manipulated to aggravate the crisis rather than assuage it. The Supreme Court’s ruling has failed to uphold its fundamental duty—to serve justice impartially and safeguard democratic stability.

    Morally dubious decisions haunt us, and some justices of the Supreme Court involved in the Rivers State case must be dealing with their regrets. Restoring confidence in the Supreme Court requires addressing perceptions of bias and ensuring decisions are grounded in constitutional principles rather than political agendas.
    The Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State has left a trail of confusion, economic hardship, and political instability. It has raised serious questions about the Judiciary’s integrity and its mediatory role. There must be mechanisms for judicial accountability and reforms to prevent future rulings that exacerbate crises rather than resolve them to restore public confidence in the legal system. Justice in a democracy should serve the people, not feudal lords or political interests. It should provide stability, not chaos. The Supreme Court must rise above political influences and uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and constitutionalism. Only then can democracy truly thrive in Rivers State and across Nigeria.

  • Rivers: Backlash of a supreme verdict – By Dakuku Peterside

    Rivers: Backlash of a supreme verdict – By Dakuku Peterside

    In his book “The Power of Regrets”, Daniel Pink explores how retrospection can be a powerful tool for growth and improvement. Reflecting on the Supreme Court judgment that has thrown Rivers State into chaos, I ask myself fundamental questions. If the Supreme Court justices were to reflect on their ruling, would they regret the consequences it has unleashed? What about the two primary political figures at the heart of the crisis—Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister Nyesom Wike? What could be their regrets when they reflect on what is going on? Most significantly, the people of Rivers State, bearing the brunt of the judgment’s repercussions, indeed have the deepest regrets, spanning social, economic, and political dimensions. Their sense of injustice is palpable. Regrets are a part of life.  Pink said clearly from his research that we all have something we wish we had done differently.

    Justice is the bedrock of any democratic society, providing stability, fairness, and order. However, when a Supreme Court ruling not only deepens an existing crisis but also fuels political strife, it calls into question the Judiciary’s integrity and role in governance. The recent Supreme Court judgment concerning Rivers State has ignited a political firestorm, raising fundamental questions about its implications for governance, democracy, and the rule of law.

    A meta-analysis of 134 expert legal commentaries in the media on the ruling reveals an overwhelming consensus—130 commentators argue that the verdict did more harm than good, failing to uphold legal standards and instead entrenching political instability. Those 130 commentators believe that the apex court did not dwell on the law but rather on extraneous issues. Only four legal experts expressed a differing opinion, highlighting the near-universal disapproval of the judgment within the legal community.

    Justice Mojeed Owoade (rtd) led 11-man Independent Judicial Accountability Panel delivered a scathing critique of the judgment. The panel noted that the Supreme Court failed to resolve the crucial issue of the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers, leaving a gap in legal interpretation. In their words, “the judgment of the Supreme Court in the consolidated appeals leaves a gap as to whether the issue of the alleged defection of 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is still alive or has been settled. This is because the court commented on the defection issue without actually addressing it.” This failure is significant given that a similar case in 2012 saw the Supreme Court uphold the removal of lawmakers who defected without due process.

    One of the most contentious aspects of the judgment was its handling of local government elections. The Supreme Court verdict  in annulling the elections did not follow any precedence known to law. To make matters more complicated, the Supreme Court nullified the elections without providing a timeline for fresh polls, leaving the fate of governance in limbo.  LGA chairmen have been elected and sworn in yet the Supreme Court without hearing the chairmen or their political parties annulled the election. The only justification given by the apex court is that   INEC had not updated the voter register. The fact that this is a hatchet job does not require a soothsayer.

    This judicial oversight has triggered widespread confusion. Over 10,000 local government workers remain uncertain about their employment status. Vital social services may be affected.

    Even more curious is the fact that 32 other states have conducted local government elections under similar conditions without interference. Why was Rivers State singled out? The Supreme Court ruling raises serious concerns about selective judicial intervention and inconsistency in legal precedents.

    In another troubling move, the Supreme Court ruling directing the withholding  of federal allocations to Rivers State, a constitutional entitlement without preconditions , has plunged the people of Rivers state into financial uncertainty. How could the Supreme Court expose the people of Rivers State to unprecedented suffering based on a disagreement between two politicians? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the federal government lacks the authority to withhold statutory allocations due to constitutional infractions, as seen in the case of Lagos State vs. the Federal Government. This action contradicts the court’s precedent, particularly in the landmark Lagos State vs. Federal Government case, where the court ruled that federal allocations cannot be withheld due to constitutional infractions.

    The impact of this decision is profound. Thousands of civil servants face delayed salaries and economic hardship. Infrastructure projects and public services have ground to a halt. The ruling has exacerbated economic instability in a state critical to Nigeria’s oil revenue, which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s crude oil production. Instead of resolving the crisis, the Supreme Court ruling has deepened the political turmoil in Rivers State, creating a perception of partisanship within the Judiciary. By failing to uphold impartial justice, the court has inadvertently set a dangerous precedent where judicial rulings can be weaponised for political ends. Future political conflicts may escalate as parties exploit judicial verdict gas.

    Fubara and Wike, who is  fighting through his proxies, must be full of regrets if they have a conscience. The thrill of defeat and the agony of victory cannot help them. For Wike, the Supreme Court ruling has given him an opportunity to assert his dominance over Rivers State’s political landscape- real or imagined. After the Supreme Court judgement, Wike  has invested time, media appearance and money to escalate the crisis and prove that he is the “political god of Rivers State “. If Wike has any regrets,they are likely overshadowed  by his sense of imperial entitlement .

    Fubara, on the other hand, has struggled to maintain stability while attempting to comply with the  apex court ruling. He has repeatedly attempted to present the budget to the Rivers State House of Assembly, highlighting his commitment to complying with legal processes. The intentional act of the Assembly making itself unavailable for the Governor to present the budget is not about Rivers State’s interest but about their ego and one man’s interest. They have prioritised their personal and political gains over the well-being of Rivers people. Added to that is the assembly’s  latest attempt to ambush the Chief Judge of the state and hound him out of office.

    While politicians manoeuvre for power, the real victims of this crisis are the ordinary people of Rivers State. Rivers people will be exposed to unprecedented social dislocation, crimes and hardship. The judgment has led to economic hardship due to delayed salaries and disrupted services. Increased crime rates have been fuelled by political instability and financial strain. There has been an erosion of trust in the Judiciary and democratic institutions.

    Furthermore, the judgment risks disrupting Nigeria’s oil revenue. Niger Delta youths and militant groups witnessing the impoverishment of their families while their resources sustain the nation, may resist oil extraction, further threatening national economic stability.

    This is one judgement that, in all respect has led to the displacement of the confidence of the people in the Judiciary by the perceived manipulation of judicial processes and proceedings in the far-reaching decisions of the Supreme Court on issues of defection of the 27 former lawmakers that were not pleaded by the parties before it or tried by the Federal High Court. Rivers people and the rest of Nigerians cannot understand how the Judiciary in the 21st century Nigeria would allow a baleful manipulation of the processes to allow a clear violation of Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution by defectors to the point of the Supreme Court rewarding such travesty by punishing the Governor who at all material times has worked to protect and defend the Constitution by his Oath of office.

    The Supreme Court should have better handled the critical point of the status of the 27 decamping legislators. A more balanced approach would have sent a different signal .  In the past, the Judiciary has taken firmer stances on similar cases, such as in 2007 when lawmakers who defected in Anambra State were asked to vacate their seats by constitutional provisions. Instead, this particular  ruling has emboldened political actors seeking to privatise the state ,undermine governance, creating an atmosphere where impeachment and humiliation of the Governor appear viable strategies for political gain. The general perception in Rivers State is that the president has unleashed his minister against the people of Rivers State. None of these scenarios benefit the people of Rivers State.

    Thankfully , the Governor had not acted in disobedience to any court order since appeals were filed in all of the rulings on interlocutory applications in the courts below. Generally speaking, parties are bound by the judgment of Courts, which are or constitute a final determination of matters brought by litigants. Thus, it is wrong or unfair to unnecessarily accuse a party of disobedience to Orders subject to appellate jurisdiction on cases pending before the lower Courts.

    When we speak of justice, we reach for the foundation of human existence. Justice is the cornerstone of human togetherness. The rule of law should be a stabilising force, ensuring justice and accountability. However, in this case, it has been manipulated to aggravate the crisis rather than assuage it. The Supreme Court’s ruling has failed to uphold its fundamental duty—to serve justice impartially and safeguard democratic stability. Morally dubious decisions haunt us, and some justices of the Supreme Court involved in the Rivers State case must be dealing with their regrets. Restoring confidence in the Supreme Court requires addressing perceptions of bias and ensuring decisions are grounded in constitutional principles rather than political agendas.

    The Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State has left a trail of confusion, economic hardship, and political instability. It has raised serious questions about the Judiciary’s integrity and its mediatory role. There must be mechanisms for judicial accountability and reforms to prevent future rulings that exacerbate crises rather than resolve them to restore public confidence in the legal system. Justice  in a democracy should serve the people, not feudal lords or  political interests. It should provide stability, not chaos. The Supreme Court must rise above political influences and uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and constitutionalism. Only then can democracy truly thrive in Rivers State and across Nigeria.

  • Rivers Assembly should embrace peace – Fubara

    Rivers Assembly should embrace peace – Fubara

    Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers urged the state House of Assembly to embrace peace and prioritise the interest of the state in compliance with the Supreme Court judgement.

    Fubara made the remark at the inauguaration of the 85-year-old Okrika Grammar School in Okrika Local Government Area on Thursday in Port Harcourt.

    The governor said that it was important at the stage of the political crisis in the state that all the stakeholders embrace peace.

    “The Supreme Court has made its judgment, we don’t have any option than to abide by it,” he said.

    According to him, the other party to the Supreme Court judgment, the Rivers State House of Assembly, needed to know that they are also to comply with the ruling.

    ‘’And do so with commitment that prioritises the interest of the state.’’

    Fubara said that such resolve must engender collective action towards achieving peace in the state.

    He said that it was because it served as the potent medium through which all the arms of government could function properly while creating public goods that would benefit everyone.

    He emphasised that without an enduring peace, sustainable development would be hampered practically, while the sense of security, respect, tolerance, stability, and well-being to pursue goals would suffer.

    “And by the special grace of God, we have started the process; we are appealing to other parties to consider the interest of Rivers State, it is important.

    “The only thing that we owe this state is peace and development. I am open any day, any time for total peace in our state.

    ‘’Because if I have to govern well, there is need for peace to prevail,” Fubara said.

    Speaking on the project, he recalled how the planning committee of the 20th Anniversary of the Diocese of Okrika Anglican Communion visited his office, and appealed to him to give the dilapidated school a facelift.

    Fubara explained that the request was considered base on the school’s place in history and the importance of quality education in addressing some social vices among idle and uneducated youths.

    He said his administration resolved that the standard of the school should be uplifted since education, healthcare and food sufficiency were part of its agenda.

    According to him, to the glory of God, we are here today to unveil one of the things that we have done, even in the face of these situations confronting our administration.

    Fubara assured the Anglican Church that whatever that is remaining within the scope of what has been approved for the institution, will be completed.

    He added that education had remained the bedrock of development in any society, saying that if the key facilities to boost education were properly managed, crime would be reduced drastically.

    He urged the Church which manages the school to protect every facility the government had put in  place in the school.

    Fubara assured the leadership of the Church that experts would be sent to assess the shore protection concerns expressed by the Bishop, and see how to safeguard the school surrounding from being washed away.

    He, however, urged the Old Boys of the school to take up some strategic projects, especially the establishment of a centre for computer-based examinations for external examinations.

    In his remarks, Dr. Ovy Chukwuma, the State Commissioner for Education, said that the massive remodelling and reconstruction work on the school was achieved which had restored the glory of Okrika Grammar School.

    Chukwuma said that the construction and equipping of Okrika Grammar School was awarded in April, 2024 to various contractors while the project was fully funded by the government.

    According to Chukwuma, the project consists of an Administrative Block, 24 Classroom Blocks, Laboratory, ICT, Library Block, Assembly Hall, 100-bed Male Hostel, 100-bed Female Hostel, Kitchen and Dinning Hall.

    “It also has Matron’s quarters and sickbay, Principal’s quarters, senior staff quarters, junior staff quarters, perimeter fencing, gate, generator house and power supply with extension of electricity, including solar-powered streetlights, among other.

    “There is road network and landscaping of about 1.8 kilometers with 1.5 kilometer drainage, interlocking connecting buildings, completed road pavements and parking lots, water supply to all the buildings within the compound,’’ he said.
    Speaking also, the Head of Local Government Administration, Okrika LGA, Mrs Obianime Appollos, said the Okrika Grammar School, established in 1940, had remained an iconic institution known for academic excellence.

    He commended Fubara for remodelling the structures and restoring the status of the institution after years of neglect.

    Mr Golden Iruayenama, on behalf of the Old Boys Association, said the school’s years of neglect and dilapidated structures were worrisome and promises to fix them never materialised until Gov. Fubara changed the narrative.

    Also speaking, Bishop Enoch Atuboyedia of Diocese of Okrika, Anglican Communion, said it would be remembered that the Grammar school, after 85 years of existence, was magnanimously remodelled and resuscitated by Fubara.

  • ‘I will leave office but…’ – Fubara to comply with S/Court’s judgment

    ‘I will leave office but…’ – Fubara to comply with S/Court’s judgment

    Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers, says his administration will  fully  implement  the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on  political crisis rocking the state.

    Fubara gave the assurance on Tuesday at  the inauguration of the new Judges’ Quarters, a housing facility completed by his administration in Port Harcourt.

    “It is not about me, I will leave office but the good work that I have done will speak for me and will defend my generation”

    He stated that the quarters was built for Judges who are indigenes of the state or  connected  to the state  by  marriage.

    “The political issues  in Rivers  happened for  protection of the interest of  its people.

    “It has not been an easy 16 months but what is important is the interest of our state, which must be above our personal interest. It is not about me, it is about the good of this state,” he said.

    Fubara said the money expended in prosecuting the political crisis on both sides was a huge waste.

    He stated that such financial resources and other efforts,  would be more profitable, if they were synergised, and channelled to things  that promoted genuine well-being and good of the state.

    “Thank God we are here today, I can assure you that  I have not gone back on my words that nothing, no price is too big to pay for peace in this state, because at the end of the day, it is about our people.

    “It is not about me, I will leave office but the good work that I have done will speak for me and will defend my generation,” he said.

    Fubara said that completing the facility, showed that his administration priotised the welfare, particularly of judicial officers.

    He explained that his administration inherited the project, and with reports from the Ministry of Justice and some concerns from the judiciary, it became imperative to continue with it.

    “We give glory to God that today, we have completed this project, and we are willing and ready to hand it over to the lucky judges who are going to live here so that they can perform their duties effectively.”

    The governor harped on the need for proper maintenance of the  facility and the entire premises.

    The Chief Judge of Rivers, Simeon Amadi, recalled how he laid the foundation stone of the project, which was initiated by the immediate past administration on May 22, 2023.

    The Chief Judge commended Fubara for completing the project, which he said represented  another milestone and great accomplishment for the Rivers  judiciary.

    “We are pleased with this landmark achievement, which represents continuation of the policy of providing befitting residential accommodation for judges of Rivers  on owner-occupier basis or monetary ground in lieu thereof.

    “This is backed by the Rivers State Housing Scheme for Judicial Officers Law No. 10 of 2021, passed by the Rivers  House of Assembly, and signed into law by the immediate past governor.

    “The Rivers government remains resolute in ensuring that judges were quartered while in service, and in recent years, had gone further to allocate official quarters to judges on  basis of owner-occupier or monetary ground of a fixed sum in lieu thereof.

    “The policy of providing official accommodation for judges on owner-occupier basis or monetary ground in lieu thereof has greatly reduced  the pressure on judicial officers who hitherto,  struggled to build retirement homes while in service with limited resources.

    “Such pressure and desire to own retirement homes in time past was a major concern and had its  impact on job performance,” he added.

    In an address, Mrs Ibiwari Clapton-Ogolo, the Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary of the state justice ministry, said the housing scheme  law applied to judicial officers who must be indigenes of Rivers  either by birth or marriage.

    “The scheme provides for ownership of a decent accommodation in the state by every judicial officer who is an indigene  or married to an indigene  or monetisation of the accommodation, subject to the approval of the government.

    “In accordance with the above law, today, the chief judge of Rivers  will commission seven duplexes of five bedrooms, which are exquisitely furnished.

    “Our judges deserve nothing less. I pray that these duplexes will not just be  living houses but homes where they will find peace and rest as they discharge their duties to God and to men,” she added.

  • Supreme Court dismisses PDP’s suit, upholds Aiyedatiwa’s victory

    Supreme Court dismisses PDP’s suit, upholds Aiyedatiwa’s victory

    The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Agboola Ajayi, challenging the legitimacy of Gov. Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s election as Ondo State governor.

    In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Garba Lawal, the apex court threw out the appeal for being baseless, frivolous and lacking in merit.

    It, therefore, upheld the concurrent judgments of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal on the disputed qualifications matter.

    Ajayi had sought to nullify Aiyedatiwa’s victory, accusing the governor’s deputy, Owolabi Adelami of forgery, impersonation, and using a false identity.

    However, both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed Ajayi’s case on procedural grounds, upholding Aiyedatiwa’s win.

    Ajayi’s legal challenge, filed on June 7, 2024, claimed that Adelami’s eligibility was compromised due to the alleged falsification of documents.

    In the initial proceedings, the defendants, including Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, the APC, and INEC, argued that Ajayi lacked the legal standing to bring the suit and that the filing exceeded the 14-day window for such cases.

    On December 2, 2024, the Federal High Court dismissed Ajayi’s case, ruling that the criminal accusations of forgery required more substantial evidence, which could not be presented through an originating summons.

    The court also deemed the petition “statute-barred” as it was filed after the constitutionally mandated deadline.

    This decision was unanimously upheld by the Court of Appeal on January 18, 2025, with a N500,000 fine imposed on Ajayi.

    The latest apex court verdict has put to rest the long drawn legal battle over the Ondo State governorship poll.

  • Supreme Court reserves judgment in Anyanwu’s suit challenging sack as PDP Scribe

    Supreme Court reserves judgment in Anyanwu’s suit challenging sack as PDP Scribe

    The Supreme Court on Monday reserved judgment in an appeal filed by Sen. Samuel Anyanwu seeking to nullify his removal as the National Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

    The apex court reserved the judgment after taking arguments from Anyanwu’s lawyer Kingsley Njemanze, SAN, and Paul Erokoro, SAN who stood for Aniagu Emmanuel.

    Justice Uwani Aba-Aji who led the five-man panel of justices that heard the matter said that the date for the judgment delivery would be communicated to all parties when ready.

    Anyanwu who was removed from office on account of his resignation to contest the last Imo governorship election which he lost had sued the PDP leadership for blocking him to continue to remain in office having lost his gubernatorial ambition.

    He urged the court to void and set aside the judgments of the Federal High court and the Court of appeal in Enugu which had in their concurrent judgments removed him as PDP National Secretary.

    He insisted that having lost his gubernatorial adventure that he should be allowed to stage a come back to retain the same office he resigned from.

    However, counsel to Emmanuel Aniagu, told the justices that Anyanwu’s prayer violated the Constitution of the PDP, adding that having resigned as the National Secretary to contest another election, he cannot be allowed to return to the office.

    PDP and Amb. Illiya Damagun who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the appeal did not file any process for or against Anyanwu’s suit.

    However, the 4th respondent, Ali Odeifa objected to the request of Anyanwu’s bid to return to the office of the National Secretary.

    Odeifa who was represented by lawyer Okwudili Anozie urged the apex court to dismiss Anyawu’s suit for being frivolous, baseless and lacking in merit.

    Earlier, the court had dismissed the request brought before it by Anyanwu seeking to stay the execution of the judgments of the Court of Appeal and that of the Federal High Court that removed him as the National Secretary of PDP.

    The apex court threw out the request when Anyanwu in a dramatic turn applied for withdrawal of the request.

    The Court of Appeal sitting in Enugu had last December upheld a High Court decision that sacked Anyanwu as the National Secretary of the PDP.

    The appellate court subsequently upheld Chief Sunday Ude-Okoye as the substantive National Secretary of the main opposition party.

    In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Ridwan Abdullahi, the Court of Appeal held that Anyanwu‘s appeal was incompetent and lacking in merit.

    According to the appellate court, the appellant violated the PDP’s constitution by laying claim to the National Secretary position having contested and emerged as the PDP candidate in the 2024 governorship election in Imo State.

    Dissatisfied, Anyanwu in February approached the apex court to set aside the judgment of the two lower courts and recognize him as the authentic National Secretary of the PDP.

  • Oyo: Adegbola regains Staff of Office as Eleruwa after Supreme Court removal

    Oyo: Adegbola regains Staff of Office as Eleruwa after Supreme Court removal

    Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State in Ibadan on Thursday presented a Certificate of Appointment and Staff of Office to Oba Samuel Adegbola, as the new Eleruwa of Eruwa.

    Governor Makinde had on Tuesday approved the reappointment of Adegbola as the traditional ruler of Eruwa land.

    Recall that Adegbola was installed in 1998 but deposed on Nov. 29, 2019, by an order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

    In his remarks, Makinde said the Eruwa obaship issue had lingered since 2019, leaving the town without a traditional ruler since then.

    According to the governor, Adegbola had reigned for 21 years before the Supreme Court judgment that sacked him.

    He said the new selection process, put in place by the kingmakers of Eruwa to fill the vacant stool, unanimously reselected Adegbola from the Akalako ruling house.

    Makinde said he, as the governor, only had to endorse the kingmakers’ nomination without interference.

    He further said the roles of traditional rulers could not be overemphasised, saying, “They are closer to the people.”

    According to the governor, traditional rulers also play vital roles in the area of security and preservation of culture in their respective domains.

    He pledged that his administration would continue to support and protect the traditional institution in the state.

    Eruwa is an ancient town and the headquarters of Ibarapa East Local Government Area of Oyo State.

    In his acceptance speech, the Oba promised to unite all his subjects in ensuring that the people of Eruwa live together harmoniously.

    He also pledged to work towards the growth and progress of the ancient town and Ibarapa land in general.

  • Rivers: Supreme Court and an uncharted dangerous territory – By Pius Mordi

    Rivers: Supreme Court and an uncharted dangerous territory – By Pius Mordi

    When the apex court in the land gives a judgement, it carries the weight of a final arbiter for which there is no appeal. That puts a burden on the Justices. It becomes incumbent on them to take every factor – political, economic – into consideration. When there was more of politics that influence its decision, it takes measures to advice that the ruling should not be cited as a precedent. It happened in 1979 when the Justices had to navigate the constitutional requirement that to be elected president, the candidate should score at least 25 percent of votes in at least two thirds of the states.

    Coming at a time there when there were 19 states in the country, it was mathematically impossible to arrive at a precise figure in terms of number of states. But arrive at a decision the learned justices did, but it came with a caveat: It was not to cited as a precedent.

    The pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in the Rivers crisis were dating bold and monumental. In one of the judgments, the apex court barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation and other agencies from releasing funds to Rivers state government until it purges itself of what the court described as “flagrant disobedience to court orders.” It held that the actions of Governor Simi Fubara over the defection of 27 members of the Rivers Assembly is an act of “brigandage and dictatorship” aimed at preventing the House from performing its legitimate functions under the speakership of Martyns Amaewhule.

    While it has established a precedent on similar incidents in the past where governors recognised the minority group in the state houses of assembly, as was the case with Nyesom Wike, the main protagonist in the Rivers State crisis who chose to work with only six out of over 30 lawmakers at some point in his time as governor of Rivers State, it failed to resolve the issue of the true status of the pro-Wike group. The Amaewhule-led group was directed to resume as the elected representatives of the people. The suit on their eligibility as lawmakers having earlier decamped from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the platform on which they were elected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) at a time there was no crisis in their party is still a contentious issue. That they backtracked after realising the folly in their action does not detract from the fact that they openly and formally announced their change of allegiance.

    What happens if the pro-Wike group decides to impeach Gov Fubara as they are already threatening to do having already given the governor a 48-hour deadline to re-present the 2025 budget to them and afterwards the high court rules that they lost their seat at the point of defection as stipulated in the Electoral Law as amended?

    In contentiously ruling that there was “flagrant disobedience to court orders” by Fubara on his perception and handling of the Wike 27, I thought appealing the high court judgement was valid until it gets to the apex court whose judgement is final as has now happened.

    And if “flagrant disobedience to court orders” as the court labelled Fubara’s action on a suit that still subject to appeal earned a subregional government a unilateral suspension of release of statutory allocations from the Federation Accounts and Allocation Committee (FAAC), what happens when the Federal Government which is a serial and willful defiant of court judgements not beneficial to it irrespective of the government in power, is deemed to have defined the court?

    The Supreme Court held that Fubara’s treatment of the Wike 27 was “an act of brigandage and dictatorship” aimed at preventing the House from performing its legitimate functions under the speakership of Amaewhule. It is instructive that the court held the duties of the legislators so high that it deemed the governor’s action as brigandage and dictatorship. Apart from ensuring that the lawmakers function effectively, Fubara has the greater task of governing the state, paying civil servants’ salaries and delivering services to the people. By denying the state access to its statutory allocations, is the judgement of the learned justices any less dictatorial and and an act of brigandage?

    The court’s judgement takes the country to uncharted territory. By the decision it took to withhold a state’s allocations, the court practically declared a federating unit as no longer part of the federation that should govern its people and provide requisite services. Was it strict legalese that informed the judgement of the Supreme Court or was it driven by politics?

    From the moment he lost unquestionable control of his successor, Wike did not disguise his determination to oust Fubara. Having failed to get him impeached by his loyalists in the state House of Assembly, Wike resorted to every unorthodox means to get Fubara out. With an Aso Rock intent on “capturing” rather than winning elections in some state classified as key that had eluded the ruling party, it was all too willing to provided logistics and every support Wike needed to carry out his game plan. A judiciary facing credibility crisis against the backdrop of questionable judgements has only succeeded in taking the country to the brink.

    Fubara is the first Ijaw man to be governor of Rivers State. To his people, there is a legion of unusual rulings made by the apex court in a bid to dismantle the governor’s government.

    Strangely, Justice Jamilu Tukur restored an another verdict of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which barred the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing voters register to the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission for the conduct of the LG polls. It maintained that there was no evidence that INEC carried out a review of the voters register, at least 90 days before the election was held. The constitution has barred the running of local governments by unelected people, requiring that only an updated voters register should be released by INEC is a dubious ruling. Other states had earlier conducted their own LG elections using the same INEC register.

    The carte blanche given Wike by the serial judgements in a crisis that is essentially politically engineered is reminiscent of what President Donald Trump is doing to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky. The American leader did not disguise his loathing of Zelensky, preferring to pander to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. His decision to give all the aces to Putin even before negotiations begin has complicated the search for peace.
    In its reaction Pan Niger Delta Forum ,(PANFEF) expressed worry that the people of Rivers State were the casualties of the judgment. More telling is the statement attributed to the president of Ijaw National Congress, Prof. Benjamin Okaba.

    “If Gov. Fubara’s tenure is truncated by the Amaewhule-led Assembly or anybody else, the INC cannot guarantee the sustenance of the current peace in the Niger Delta, nor the continued rise in oil production”, the Ijaw leader has warned.

    Even within the APC, it might not be all smooth sailing. Chief Eze Chukwuemeka Eze, a chieftain of the party, argued that the Supreme Court judgment reinstating the 27 defected lawmakers as valid members of the state House of Assembly was a clear declaration of war on the state, describing the ruling as not only a Black Friday in the country’s nascent democracy, but “declaration of war against Rivers State and death of judiciary in Nigeria”.

    For the gloating Wike and his 27 loyalists, it might be premature. Fubara has been calm and clear-headed in his reaction, preferring to declare that he will abide by the Supreme Court judgement. But that much cannot be said of other stakeholders in Rivers State.

  • Rivers Govt. vows timely implementation of Supreme Court judgement

    Rivers Govt. vows timely implementation of Supreme Court judgement

    The Rivers Government, on Wednesday said that in the interest of the state, it would implement timeously the Supreme Court judgement once the certified true of the judgement was received.

    The Secretary to the Rivers State Government, Dr Tammy Danagogo, said this in a letter addressed to the Speaker of the State Assembly, and issued to newsmen in Port Harcourt.

    Dnagogo said that the state government had been in contact with its legal team who were still awaiting the certified true copy of the Supreme Court judgement.

    Reacting to a letter he which said was making the rounds on social media dated March 3, and titled “Resolution of the Rivers House of Assembly”, he said his office was yet to receive the said letter.

    According to him, not even the office of the governor, that of the  deputy governor or even that of the state Accountant-General has received the said letter.

    Danagogo recalled that Gov. Siminalayi Fubara had at a state broadcast on Sunday, said that notwithstanding his personal opinion on the supreme court judgement, he would implement the decision of the court.