In its judgment, the apex court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s position that the case concerns the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State.
The Supreme Court has faulted the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the controversial Rivers State revenue allocation case, affirming that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 stopping the state’s revenue allocation.
In its judgment, the apex court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s position that the case concerns the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State.
It held that the appellate court’s reasoning was incorrect and not supported by the reliefs sought in the originating summons.
The Supreme Court clarified that the objective of the suit is to halt the release of funds to the first and second respondents until they comply with the rulings in previous cases—RSHA1 and RSHA2.
These judgments, it noted, require the Rivers State House of Assembly to pass an appropriation law in line with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
It noted that while the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State stemmed from a disregard for the rule of law and court orders, it nevertheless ruled that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the case.
The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the Federal High Court has the power to enforce compliance with judicial decisions, even where enforcement involves parties who were not originally part of the case.
Citing similar judicial precedents, the Supreme Court noted that judgment enforcement often involves individuals or institutions with official roles in implementing court orders, making Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024 a continuation of earlier judgments rather than a new, independent case.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appeal Court’s decision was incorrect, and it upheld the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in the matter.
The sole issue in Appeal No. SC/CV/1174/2024 was resolved in favour of the appellants – Rivers State House of Assembly and Martin Amaewhule.
The suit has as respondents Rivers State Government; River State Independent Electoral Commission; Hon. Justice Adolphus Enebeli (Rtd) (Chairman, Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission); Central Bank of Nigeria; Zenith Bank Plc.; Access Bank Plc.; Accountant General of the Federation; Government of Rivers State; (Sir Siminalayi Fubara); Accountant General of Rivers State, and Hon. Justice S. C. Amadi (Chief Judge of Rivers State).
Governor Fubara had contested the legitimacy of the Rivers State House of Assembly under Speaker Martin Amaewhule’s leadership.
However, the court ruled against Fubara, ordering Amaewhule and other elected lawmakers to immediately resume legislative duties.
In its judgment, the court criticised Fubara for presenting the state’s appropriation bill to a four-member assembly, effectively excluding 28 constituencies.
The court condemned this as a clear violation of a prior order requiring the governor to re-submit the 2024 budget to a properly constituted assembly led by Amaewhule.
The Supreme Court also criticised Fubara’s handling of the alleged defection of 28 lawmakers, describing it as an authoritarian attempt to hinder the assembly’s functions.
Additionally, the court condemned the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex, calling it an abuse of executive power intended to silence the legislature.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also nullified the local government elections held in Rivers State on October 5, 2024.
Justice Jamilu Tukur ruled that the election was invalid due to major violations of the Electoral Act.