A member of the House of Representatives and legal practitioner, Mr. Solomon Bob, has stated that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of an appeal by Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara has solidified the Court of Appeal’s decision, which upheld a Federal High Court ruling requiring the governor to present the state’s budget to the Martin Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of Assembly.
Bob emphasized that the judgment not only affects the 2024 budget but also has implications for the 2025 budget and other legislative matters.
The Supreme Court had dismissed Fubara’s appeal, which challenged the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of a Federal High Court judgment. The lower court had ruled that the governor was obligated to present the state’s 2024 budget to the Amaewhule-led Assembly. Bob, who represents the Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State, argued that the Supreme Court’s decision leaves the lower court’s order intact and enforceable, impacting future budgetary and legislative processes.
Speaking over the weekend, Bob explained, “On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Governor Fubara against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld the judgment of Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023. Justice Omotosho’s judgment, which was delivered on January 22, 2024, touched on the entirety of the issues at the center of the crisis, including: (a) leadership and membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly and (b) presentation of the 2024 appropriation law or any presentations to the House of Assembly.”
He further highlighted a specific order from the judgment: “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).”
Bob stressed that the judgment extends beyond the 2024 budget, affecting all subsequent presentations, including the 2025 budget, as well as requests or nominations before the Rivers State House of Assembly.
He criticized Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Femi Falana for what he described as a misleading interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision. Falana had argued that the dismissed appeal only pertained to the 2024 budget and was therefore “merely academic.”
Bob countered, “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.”
The lawmaker pointed out that, under Section 272(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over questions of vacancy in a State House of Assembly. He noted that Justice Omotosho’s judgment, affirmed by the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court, remains the only legally binding decision on the status of the 27 Rivers State lawmakers.
“Mr. Falana’s insistence that they have lost their seats is outrageous. It lacks legal basis,” Bob stated.
He also challenged Falana’s interpretation of Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution, which deals with the vacation of seats by lawmakers. Bob argued that no constitutional provision is self-executing and that all such matters require judicial interpretation.
“Contrary to his vaunted opinion, section 109(1)(g) of the constitution is not self-executory. 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,” he said.
Bob expressed dismay at Falana’s public statements on the Rivers crisis, accusing the senior lawyer of misleading the public and justifying constitutional abuses.
“I am dismayed by Mr. Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public with respect to the Rivers crisis. Often presenting his brief to the appotheosizing lay public as public interest advocacy, Mr. Falana eagerly justifies dangerous out-of-control behaviour and egregious constitutional abuse in Rivers State; the type he would certainly not accept in his native Ekiti,” he said.
He further criticized Falana for what he termed “self-serving sophistry” and “hollow whataboutism,” particularly in defending the legality of a three-member quorum in a 30-member House of Assembly.
“Mr. Falana should separate his animus towards an individual from his exposition of the law and have the humility to admit that he is not the law. Because no matter how much legal knowledge he professes, his opinion remains his personal opinion and cannot approximate to the law. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said, the law is ‘The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact,’” Bob remarked.
Concluding his remarks, Bob urged Falana to respect the judiciary’s decisions and refrain from misleading the public. “As Rivers State reels under Fubara’s unexampled and delinquent misrule, and the courts undo his myriad criminal misdeeds, a lawyer of Mr. Falana’s prominence should at least respect their decision, not mislead the public,” he added.
