There are two sides to the judgment of the Supreme Court that require compliance by the Rivers State Government. One is the annulment of the Rivers State Local Government Council election of October 5, 2024; the other is the order for Amaewhule and Co to resume sitting as Speaker and Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, which demands recognition by the Rivers State Government as the duly constituted House of Assembly, failure to which the CBN and Accountant General of the Federation are ordered to withhold further release of funds accruing to Rivers State from the Federation Account.
The lawful compliance options open to the Rivers State Government in keeping with the Supreme Court judgments are as follows:
On the issue of the annulled local government elections, it is a case of non-compliance with Section 9(6) of the Electoral Act 2022, which requires RSIEC to give a Notice to INEC of its intention to conduct local government election, following which INEC is mandated to stop continuing voters registration in Rivers State so as to issue an updated Register of Voters for Rivers State “not later than 90 days” before the election. By announcing the dissolution of the elected local government councils and directing the Head of Local Government Administration (HLGA) for each LGA to take over the running of the councils pending the conduct of fresh election, the Governor would have complied fully with this aspect of the Supreme Court judgment. What RSIEC now has to do is to issue Notice to INEC of its intention to conduct fresh local government election, citing a date at least 90 clear days away from the date of the Notice, within which time INEC is obliged by law to release the Register of Voters to RSIEC for the conduct of the election. It is important that the date of the election is cited in this Notice to INEC. Every other arrangements for the election is to be scheduled within the 90 says period of waiting. INEC is legally obliged to stop continuing voters registration and to release the Register of Voters to RSIEC “NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION”.
On the second issue of the resumption of legislative business of the Rivers State House of Assembly by Amaewhule & Co as the Speaker and elected Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly as ordered by the Supreme Court, the Rivers State Government can “LAWFULLY WITHOLD RECOGNITION” to them and refrain from having any dealing with them as a legislature, until their status of legitimacy or otherwise following their defection from PDP to APC is conclusively decided by the Supreme Court. The Rivers State Government has two inviolable authorities as legal foundation for its refusal to recognize the defected members as legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, even if doing so will bring about an unlawful seizure of its federal allocations. The first is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the grundnorm and highest law of the land that created even the Supreme Court. Section 109 (1)(g) of the Constitution makes the seat of a defected lawmaker AUTOMATICALLY VACANT. The Governor of Rivers State swore to uphold the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and therefore CANNOT VIOLATE IT, by recognizing defected lawmakers as legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly until the Supreme Court conclusively determines whether or not they defected, given the notorious facts available.
Instructively, the second authority founding the Governor’s refusal to recognize the defected lawmakers is the judgment of the Supreme Court itself in the case of DAPIANLONG vs. GOV. JOSHUA DARIYE. In refusing to recognize Amaewhule and 26 other defected lawmakers as legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Governor of Rivers State cannot be accused of DISOBEYING the Supreme Court Judgment when he is infact following the judgment of the same Supreme Court on the same issue. Interestingly, it is the Supreme Court itself that pronounced that the seat of a defected lawmaker becomes “VACANT BY THE OPERATION OF LAW” in the above mentioned case where the lead judgment was given by Onnoghen, JSC, who later became Chief Justice of Nigeria. The Supreme Court made the following vital pronouncement in the introductory part of the judgment:
“Plateau State, like any other State in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has a House of Assembly established under section 20 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999… The said House of Assembly constitutes of 24 members. It is an undisputed fact that between 25th and 26th July, 2006, fourteen (14) out of the twenty-four (24) members of the Plateau State House of Assembly including the Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof, cross carpeted from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the platform on which they were elected to the House in 2003 to Advanced Congress of Democrats (ADC), a registered political party, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE SAID 14 MEMBERS VACATED THEIR SEATS BY OPERATION OF LAW, leaving only 10 members of that House”.
After evaluating the facts and arguments on the issues for determination in the case, the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen,JSC, repeated in its judgment on those issues as follows:
“There is no doubt that there existed in the Plateau State House of Assembly 14 vacant seats AS A RESULT OF CROSS CARPETING… It is my view that until the vacancies created by the carpet crossing members are filled by the process of by-election, the Plateau State House of Assembly can only transact such legislative duties that require the participation of less than two-third majority of all the members of that House.”
In giving this judgement, the Supreme Court expressed vacancy of seat arising from defection of the lawmakers as automatic by operation of law; it did not make any reference to any judgment of any court that pronounced those seats as vacant. This is exactly the same scenario with the Rivers State case. The 27 defected lawmakers lost their seat automatically by operation of law. The Governor of Rivers State cannot grant them recognition in violation of the Constitution and earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The Governor must not give in to the cheap blackmail that he is in habitual disobedience of court order to unlawfully give recognition to Amaewhule & Co against the spirit and letter of the 1999 Constitution that he swore to uphold and defend. If Amaewhule & Co are now denying that they defected, having known the consequences of losing their seats that come with it, they should wait until their status of defection is determined by the court of law up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the final arbiter.
ADAPTED
