ONC Condemns Federal Govt’s Release Of Rivers State Funds To Sole Administrator
A fresh wave of legal and political controversy has erupted in Rivers State following the Federal Government’s release of the state’s statutory allocations to the illegally appointed Sole Administrator, despite an existing Supreme Court order barring such disbursements.
In a strongly worded statement, Amb. Comrade Emeni Ibe (JP, AP), President General of the Orashi National Congress, condemned the move as “unlawful, immoral, and a blatant affront to constitutional democracy”.
On February 18, 2025, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF) from disbursing Rivers State’s budgetary allocations until a valid Appropriation Act is passed by a lawfully constituted House of Assembly.
Despite this clear judicial directive, the Federal Government has proceeded to release the state’s funds to the Sole Administrator—an action critics argue is a blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s authority.
Amb. Comrade Emeni Ibe’s statement raises profound constitutional concerns:
Is the Sole Administrator a Lawful Legislative Body?
The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria does not recognize a Sole Administrator as a legitimate lawmaking authority in the absence of a House of Assembly.
Who Approves State Expenditures?
Under constitutional provisions, state expenditures—including salaries and public services—must be legally approved through a legislative process.
Can Emergency Powers Override Judicial Authority?
Although Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency, such powers do not supersede the authority of the Supreme Court. Legal experts argue that if the Federal Government sought to alter the judgment, the lawful process would have been to return to the Supreme Court to request a review or modification.
Amb. Ibe further criticized the CBN and Accountant-General for complying with the executive directive despite the standing court order. Their actions, he warned, could amount to contempt of court, exposing them to potential legal consequences.
Beyond the legal questions, the statement from the Orashi National Congress raises an ethical concern:
“Was the entire power struggle in Rivers State truly about the people—or merely about controlling the state’s financial resources?”
Amb. Ibe described the Federal Government’s action as “immoral, ungodly, and unforgivable,” warning that it sets a dangerous precedent where future administrations may feel emboldened to disregard judicial authority for political convenience.
The statement concludes with a call to action, urging the Federal Government to respect the rule of law by seeking proper judicial channels if it wishes to alter the existing Supreme Court ruling.
Amb. Ibe emphasized that Rivers State’s welfare and resources must be handled through constitutional processes, not by executive fiat or political maneuvering.
“This is not just a Rivers State issue,” he declared, “It is about protecting Nigeria’s democracy and ensuring no leader is above the law.”
As tensions continue to rise, legal experts and political observers will be watching closely to see whether the Supreme Court takes further action to enforce its order—or whether this episode marks a troubling shift toward executive overreach in Nigeria’s democratic framework.
