Rivers State Supreme Court Judgment And The Political Gambit

1. The Court Cannot Grant Reliefs Not Sought

One of the fundamental principles of the judiciary is that courts must not delve into matters that were not raised by the litigants. This principle is enshrined in the Supreme Court’s precedent, which holds that a court must not grant reliefs that were not specifically sought by the parties. However, in the recent Rivers State case, the Supreme Court extended its ruling beyond the matters that were originally before it.

For instance, the primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s presentation of the budget to a different faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly (other than the Martin Amaewhule-led Assembly) was legal. Instead of limiting itself to this question, the Supreme Court proceeded to rule on unrelated matters, including the status of local government elections and the validity of defection by House of Assembly members.

Legal Reference:

Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in disputes between the Federation and States, while Section 233 restricts its appellate jurisdiction to matters properly brought before it. By addressing issues outside the scope of the appeal, the court exceeded its powers.

2. Local Government Election Matters Are Resolved in the High Court

Another major flaw in the Supreme Court’s ruling is its interference in local government electoral matters. Under Nigerian law, local government elections fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of State Electoral Commissions, and disputes arising from such elections are settled in the High Court. The Supreme Court, therefore, had no business making pronouncements regarding the conduct of local government elections in Rivers State.

Legal Reference:

Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution grants State Governments the exclusive power to manage local government administration, including elections.

The Electoral Act, 2022, also vests in the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) the responsibility of fixing dates for local government elections.

Previous judicial precedents confirm that election disputes concerning local government administration end at the State High Court, not the Supreme Court.

By interfering in this domain, the Supreme Court not only violated the constitution but also set a dangerous precedent for political interference in state matters.

3. Legislative Defection: Implications Under Electoral Law

One of the most contentious issues in Rivers State’s political crisis is the defection of House of Assembly members. The Supreme Court’s failure to address this issue properly further undermines the integrity of its ruling. According to Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, any legislator who defects from the political party under which they were elected automatically loses their seat unless the defection was caused by a division within the party or a merger.

Legal Reference:

Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution:

“A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which he was elected.”

In the Rivers case, some House of Assembly members defected from the PDP to the APC, yet they continued to function as legislators despite clear constitutional provisions stating that they must forfeit their seats. Instead of enforcing this law, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue, raising concerns about selective justice.

4. Seizure of State Allocation: A Constitutional Aberration

Another shocking aspect of the Supreme Court’s ruling was the pronouncement regarding the Rivers State allocation. The Federal Government, allegedly acting on the basis of this ruling, moved to withhold Rivers State’s statutory allocation, despite the fact that this issue was never a subject of litigation.

Legal Reference:

Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution:

“Any amount standing to the credit of the Federation Account shall be distributed among the Federal, State, and Local Government Councils in each State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.”

This section clearly prohibits arbitrary seizure of state allocations. The Supreme Court’s ruling failed to address this, further proving that the judgment lacked legal merit.

5. Call for NJC to Review the Judgment

Given the irregularities in this ruling, it is imperative for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to review the judgment. The NJC, as the regulatory body for judicial conduct, has the power to investigate and correct any judicial misconduct that threatens the integrity of the judiciary.

Why the NJC Must Intervene:

1. Judicial Overreach: The Supreme Court ruled on matters that were not presented before it.

2. Violation of Legal Precedents: The ruling contradicts established constitutional and electoral laws.

3. Dangerous Political Precedent: The judgment may encourage future political manipulations using the judiciary.

A review by the NJC will not only restore public confidence in the judiciary but also ensure that constitutional democracy is upheld in Nigeria.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Rivers State political crisis is a legal aberration that contravenes constitutional provisions and sets a dangerous precedent. The judgment went beyond the original prayers before the court, interfered in local government matters that should be resolved in the High Court, and ignored clear constitutional provisions regarding legislative defection. Furthermore, the unlawful seizure of Rivers State’s allocation raises concerns about executive overreach.

To preserve judicial integrity, the National Judicial Council (NJC) must intervene and revisit this judgment. The Nigerian legal system must remain a pillar of democracy, ensuring that justice is not only served but seen to be served.

– Saibakumo Williams Jnr wrote from Ayakoromo town.