The long-standing controversy surrounding the leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly remains unresolved, despite the recent intervention of the Supreme Court. A ruling that seemed to provide clarity has instead left many questions unanswered, particularly the matter of who holds the position of the Speaker.
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, took to the media to clarify what many had misunderstood regarding the apex court’s decision. Appearing on Channels Television’s Politics Today on Monday, Falana stated that the Supreme Court’s ruling had no bearing on who the legitimate Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly is, contrary to popular belief.
“Let me make it clear: the Supreme Court did not determine who is the Speaker of Rivers State. There’s a misconception, and I think we need to correct that. The court did not rule on that,” Falana said, addressing the confusion surrounding the case. The human rights advocate further explained that the ruling was merely a procedural matter. “When an appeal is dismissed not on merit, but on the basis of withdrawal by the appellant, the issue of celebration doesn’t arise. The governor’s lawyers withdrew the case because the issue had become academic,” he added.
The appeal in question had been filed by Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State, challenging the leadership of Martin Amaewhule as Speaker of the House. However, the governor’s legal team withdrew the case, acknowledging that the underlying issues no longer held relevance. As a result, the case was dismissed, not due to any judicial determination on the merits, but because of the governor’s decision to withdraw the appeal.
Falami stressed that this withdrawal meant the matter was no longer active in the court’s calendar, emphasizing that the court did not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the Speaker’s position. “The issues had been settled already, particularly concerning the 2024 budget proposal, which the governor acknowledged as having already passed into law. Therefore, the litigation had lost its purpose,” he elaborated.
In a five-man panel ruling led by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, the Supreme Court upheld the withdrawal of the suit filed by Fubara, effectively dismissing the appeal. Justice Abba-Aji’s panel pointed out that the action was a procedural move based on the governor’s legal team’s formal request to withdraw the case. Despite the withdrawal, however, the leadership struggle within the Assembly continues to simmer beneath the surface.
The drama surrounding the Rivers State Assembly has been building for over a year. The crisis began in 2023 when more than 25 lawmakers loyal to former governor Nyesom Wike defected from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to join the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The faction that remained loyal to Fubara, led by Victor Oko-Jumbo, contested the Amaewhule-led leadership, further deepening the division.
Since the formation of these rival factions, the Rivers State Assembly has been engulfed in conflict, with Fubara’s government conducting business through the Oko-Jumbo faction, while the Amaewhule group has continued to claim legitimacy. This ongoing dispute has sparked tensions and left the Assembly at a standstill, undermining its effectiveness in governance.
While Fubara has supported the Oko-Jumbo faction, which has the backing of a majority of the assembly members, the Amaewhule group has been adamant about its control of the legislative body. This schism has significantly weakened the functioning of the Assembly, especially in key areas like budget approval and state governance.
The latest Supreme Court ruling adds a layer of complexity to an already volatile situation. Legal experts, however, agree that the court’s decision was procedural and did not address the fundamental leadership crisis within the Assembly. Falana’s comments underscore the ongoing uncertainty regarding the Speaker’s position. “The court didn’t determine who is the speaker, and that’s the point we need to drive home,” Falana reiterated.
Furthermore, Falana contended that the legal framework of the House allows for the performance of legislative duties even with a minimal number of lawmakers. “Three members of the state Assembly are sufficient to carry out legislative functions, except when it comes to the impeachment of the governor,” he stated. This means that despite the divided nature of the Assembly, legislative activities could still technically continue, though with limited capacity.
However, Falana also pointed out a critical development in the ongoing dispute. “When the 27 other members of the Rivers Assembly decamped from the PDP to the APC, they lost their seats. Their seats were declared vacant, and that should have cleared the way for a resolution,” he explained.
The legal ramifications of this claim could potentially have a lasting impact on the assembly’s composition. If Falana’s interpretation is accurate, it would suggest that the Amaewhule faction’s control is more solid than many perceive, with the Oko-Jumbo faction potentially lacking the numbers to assert dominance without the full complement of members.
Despite Falana’s clarification, the political drama surrounding the Rivers Assembly leadership shows no signs of abating. Both factions continue to clash, with neither side willing to concede. The power struggle over the speaker’s seat continues to fuel tensions between Fubara’s loyalists and their rivals, with each faction vying for control.
With the withdrawal of the appeal and the Supreme Court’s stance on procedural grounds, the future of the Rivers Assembly’s leadership remains in limbo. As the political landscape in the state continues to evolve, the resolution of the Speaker’s dispute may have far-reaching consequences for governance in Rivers State.
