1 week Ago By Alex Enumah
Alex Enumah in Abuja The Court of Appeal in Abuja, yesterday upturned the judgement of a Federal High Court that stopped the release of federal monthly allocations from the consolidated funds to the Rivers State Government. A three-member panel of the appellate court in a judgement, held that the trial court in the first instance lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the suit asking it to withhold funds accruing to the state on grounds that the 2024 appropriation was yet to be presented before the Rivers State House of Assembly. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik had in her judgement delivered on October 30, restrained the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation, from releasing funds to the Rivers State Government on alleged constitutional breach.
According to the judge, the current budget being operated by the state was not passed by a lawful arm of the Rivers State House of Assembly, therefore the government should be prevented from alleged further violation of the laws. Displeased with the judgement, the Rivers State Government and the Governor, Mr. Siminalayi Fubara, had approached the Court of Appeal to vacate the judgement of Justice Abdulmalik.
The appellants besides, sought a stay of execution of the trial court’s judgement, arguing amongst others that the judgement would have adverse effect on the economy and people of Rivers State. Among the issues canvased at the appellate court was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit brought by the plaintiffs, adding that the subject matter is not within the powers of the trial court to adjudicate upon. Delivering judgement in the appeal yesterday, the three- member panel of the appellate court led by Justice Hamman Barka, agreed with the appellants that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking to seize Rivers State allocation.
According to the judgement, the mere listing of federal agencies does not confer unrestricted jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. Besides, the appellate court held that the subject matter which centered on the appropriation of a state ought not to have been entertained by the trial court. The appellate court having held that the case of the appellants has merit, subsequently allowed the appeal and set aside all the orders made by Justice Abdulmalik.
The appellate court held that the said orders were unconstitutional, null and void having made without jurisdiction, adding that the lower court over reached itself and didn’t have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Justice Abdulmalik had in October ordered the stoppage of the release of federal monthly allocations from the consolidated funds to the Rivers State Government. She had made the order while delivering judgement in the suit filed by a faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly under the speakership of RT Hon Martin Amaewhule.
Following the alleged defection of 27 lawmakers from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) that sponsored them to office, a division had erupted in the state legislature, with the Amaewhule-led faction said to be loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike and the Ehie-led four-member legislators loyal to the Rivers State Governor, Mr Siminalayi Fubara. Insisting that the Amaewhule-led faction are no longer lawmakers of the state on account of their defection, the governor had last December presented the 2024 appropriation to the Ehie-led four-member legislators. Miffed by this action, the Amaewhule-led faction had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, to challenge the action of the state government.
According to the plaintiffs, the action of the government was not only unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful, but was an affront to the principle of separation of powers. Delivering judgement Justice Abdulmalik held that the defendants failed to show any prove that the governor complied with the law in submitting the 2024 appropriation before a proper parliament. Besides, Justice Abdulmalik held that the judgement of a Rivers State High Court upon which Fubara leveraged on to present the appropriation before a four-member legislator have been set aside by the appellate court.
“The questions raised by the plaintiffs are meritorious to warrant the grant of the injunctive and declarative reliefs sought” , Justice Abdulmalik held. Specifically the court pointed out that the Rivers State government missed the point when it failed to accept the fact that the state budget have been invalidate by a Federal High Court, adding that the same judgement nullifying the budget was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, recently. Justice Abdulmalik observed that Fubara’s action in implementing unlawful budget having not been passed by the appropriate House of Assembly smacked gross violations of the 1999 Constitution he swore to protect.
Subsequently, the court made an order restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Accountant General of the Federation, Zenith Bank and Access Bank from further releasing monthly allocations from the consolidated revenue and federation account to the Rivers State Government. “Appropriation Bill for January to December 2024, being operated by the 5th defendant (Fubara), having not been charged by the lawful house of assembly is illegal, unlawful and subversion of the 1999 Constitution. “It is mandatory to present the appropriation bills before the appropriate house of assembly before legitimate disbursement and withdrawal can be made.
‘In the instant case, the 5th defendant (Fubara) has not presented any budgetary appropriation known to law to any legitimate house of assembly. Sections 120, 122 and 197 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have not been complied with. “It is unwarranted assault to the constitutional order for anybody, including the 5th defendant to be allowed or permitted to continue to breach and violate Sections 91 and 96 of the Constitution to implement budget that was not approved by the legislative arm.
” Every individual must subject to the rule of law, using illegally constituted house of assembly to disburse public fund must not be allowed”, the court held..
