A new storm is brewing in the ongoing Rivers State crisis, with Solomon Bob, the lawmaker representing Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency, strongly challenging Femi Falana’s interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment regarding the state’s political turbulence.
In a statement released Saturday, Bob accused the prominent human rights lawyer of offering a “misleading” reading of the recent Supreme Court decision. Falana, in his analysis, argued that the case, which culminated in a judgment on January 22, 2024, was limited to the 2024 appropriation law and was essentially academic. However, Bob strongly disagrees with this claim, insisting that the judgment extends far beyond the 2024 budget presentation, encompassing all future nominations, requests, or presentations made before the Rivers State House of Assembly, including those for 2025.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Omotosho, explicitly restricted Governor Fubara from making any requests, presentations, or nominations to the House of Assembly unless directed through Speaker Martin Amaewhule’s leadership. This is where Bob takes issue with Falana’s narrow interpretation, which he argues fails to address the broader implications of the ruling.
Bob further emphasized that Falana’s commentary was erroneous and contradicted the core rulings of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal, which affirmed the legitimacy of the 27 members currently serving in the Rivers State House of Assembly. According to Bob, these courts have upheld the members’ continued status, a point Falana seems to overlook.
Adding to the legal debate, Bob invoked Section 272(3) of the Constitution, which grants the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over any matter concerning vacancies in the seats of a state’s House of Assembly. He argued that only the Federal High Court had the authority to rule on the matter, making any claims to the contrary legally untenable.
The lawmaker criticized Falana for asserting that the 27 members had lost their seats, calling it “outrageous” and devoid of legal merit. Bob further noted that contrary to Falana’s assertion, Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution does not automatically enforce such a decision, reinforcing the legality of the current assembly membership.
With tensions still running high in the state, Bob’s firm rebuttal shines a spotlight on the ongoing political battle and highlights the nuances of the legal landscape, challenging the interpretations that could shape the future of Rivers State’s governance.
