The Rivers State political crisis has taken another turn as the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) disputed the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the 27 members of the State House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule.
This development comes after the Supreme Court dismissed a suit by Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara, which sought to remove the 27 lawmakers from office due to their alleged defection from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Consequently, the lawyers have called for a review of its February 28, 2025, judgment on the defection of the 27 lawmakers from the People’s Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress.
Faulting the judgment, ALDRAP said the Supreme Court judgment failed to take note of the record of proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly as contained in its hansard concerning the defection of the 27 lawmakers in December 2023.
Persecondnews recalls that the apex court in the judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, also ordered Gov. Sim Fubara to re-present the state’s 2025 budget to the Amaewhule-led Assembly.
It also stopped the payment of allocations from the Federation Account to the Rivers State Government, insisting that funds would be released to Fubara’s government only when a lawful Appropriation Law is enacted by the Assembly led by Amaewhule.
The budget had earlier been passed after Fubara presented it to the Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man faction of the Assembly.
However, ALDRAP, an association of professional legislative lawyers, is asking the Supreme Court to review the judgment, which was seen by many as a final resolution of key issues involved in the Rivers political crisis.
The legislative lawyers made the request for a review of the judgment in a letter dated March 13, 2025, and addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
According to the letter signed by ALDRAP’s lawyer, Kenneth Amadi, the request is based on the provisions of Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024. Among other contentions, the lawyers argued that the February 28 Supreme Court judgment did not comply with previous apex court verdicts on similar cases.
The letter is titled “Application for Review by a Full Panel of Seven Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Dated February 28, 2025, Delivered by Hon. Justice Emmanuel Agim, JSC, and a Panel of Five Justices, Pursuant to Order 8 Rule 16, Supreme Court Rules, 2024, and Other Relevant Laws as the Supreme Court Deems Appropriate.”
Parts of the letter reads: “By way of introduction, my name is Kenneth A. Amadi, Esq. I am a legal practitioner and lawyer to the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP), which is a professional association of lawyers in Nigeria with its national secretariat inside the National Assembly complex, Abuja.
“We write to request permission to submit an application on the above-named subject matter. This application for a review of the Supreme Court judgment of February 28, 2025, is made in accordance with the Supreme Court of Nigeria Rules, 2024, on the following grounds:
“A full panel of seven judges instead of the five judges that sat on the Rivers State House of Assembly case.
*”Failure of the panel of judges to follow and comply with the former judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, such as the case of Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981).”
In an analysis of the verdict, the Executive Secretary of ALDRAP, Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, faulted the Supreme Court judgment for failing to take note of the record of proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly concerning the defection of the 27 lawmakers.
Citing a court case, Hon. J. I. Ekpenkhio v. Hon. Matthew Egbadon (1962-2001)1 Legislative Law Reports of Nigeria (LLRN) pages 307 to 336, Jaja said: “The Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the Court has a duty to take judicial notice of the record of proceedings of the House of Assembly as stipulated under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
“In accordance with the above-named judgment, it is reasonable to expect that the Supreme Court of Nigeria would consider the words and actions of Amaewhule and the 26 others on the floor of the Rivers State House of Assembly during the plenary session in December 2023.
“Ironically, the evidence of the defection of the said 27 lawmakers is contained in the Hansard of the Rivers State House of Assembly of December 11, 2023, when the Deputy Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly read a letter of defection on behalf of the 27 lawmakers, including the Speaker. The Speaker then put it to a voice vote, and it was approved by all 27 lawmakers. This was then approved as a resolution of the Rivers State House of Assembly as passed on the 11th day of December 2023.”
Further faulting the judgment, Jaja argued: “There are so many absurdities that Hon. Justice Agim’s interpretation has created, such as the absurdity in his statement that only the offending legislature can declare that a defection has occurred.
“Additionally, Hon. Justice Agim’s interpretation has defeated the very purpose of Section 109(1)(g) of the Nigerian Constitution, considering that, going by his interpretation, it is next to impossible for any lawmaker who is in violation of the said Section to be declared as having vacated his seat if such a declaration is to be made by the Speaker of such a legislature—when the Speaker himself is also one of the lawmakers that has defected, as was the case with the 27 lawmakers of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“How on earth would any offender readily agree that he or she has committed the crime of defection, which would result in the automatic forfeiture of his or her seat in the legislature, along with the humongous sums of money that are paid as both salaries and allowances to such lawmakers?
“The judicial powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are vested in the judiciary for the sole purpose that the judiciary would perform the tasks of undertaking judicial review of the actions of the other two arms of government, namely the Executive and the Legislature. The purpose is to create checks and balances to avoid tyranny by one arm of government.
“Therefore, in the event that an application is made to the judiciary to determine whether the actions of some members of the legislature (in this case, the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly) are in violation of any section of the Nigerian Constitution, it is the judiciary alone that can adjudicate and make such a determination.
“The judiciary cannot shirk its responsibility to the legislature as Hon. Agim’s judgment has done in this case. It violates the very cardinal principle of justice and fair hearing to ask the legislature to sit as a judge in its own case to determine and declare whether a defection has occurred in violation of the said Section 109(1)(g) of the Nigerian Constitution.
Leave a comment