Why We Restored Pro-Wike Lawmakers: Supreme Court Explains 62-Page Landmark Ruling

By Emmanuel Kwada

In a decisive 62-page judgment delivered on Thursday, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has provided a detailed rationale for restoring the leadership of the Rivers State House of Assembly under Hon. Martin Amaewhule, effectively ending months of legal and political wrangling that has gripped the oil-rich state.

Rivers State House of Assembly.
Credit: X

The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the judgment, obtained by our correspondent, reveals a scathing critique of Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s actions and offers a robust defense of constitutional governance, spotlighting the apex court’s unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

The ruling, penned by Justice Emmanuel Agim, dismantles the claim that 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Amaewhule, defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC)—a charge initially leveled by Governor Fubara himself.

No iota or shred of evidence” to substantiate this allegation

The court found “no iota or shred of evidence” to substantiate this allegation, noting that Fubara voluntarily withdrew the defection claims during proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

“By not supporting the defection claim against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the apex court held that in the eyes of the law, no defection has taken place, and consequently, the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain,” the judgment states.

This absence of evidence, coupled with Fubara’s retraction, stripped the governor’s argument of any legal footing, paving the way for the court to reaffirm Amaewhule’s leadership—widely seen as loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike, now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.

1999 Constitution does not permit a House of Assembly to function with only four members

Justice Agim’s judgment goes beyond the defection issue, painting a broader picture of what the court views as a deliberate attempt by Fubara to undermine the legislative arm of Rivers State.

The court ruled that the 1999 Constitution does not permit a House of Assembly to function with only four members—a position Fubara had adopted by recognizing a rival faction led by Victor Oko-Jumbo.

“There cannot be any House of Assembly unless as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution,” Agim wrote, emphasizing that Section 96 mandates a full complement of elected members for legislative legitimacy.

The court found that Fubara’s exclusion of the 27 Amaewhule-led lawmakers predated the defection allegations, with actions such as preventing their sittings and demolishing the Assembly complex deemed “illegal and unconstitutional” by prior Court of Appeal rulings (Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024).

Section 96 mandates a full complement of elected members for legislative legitimacy

“What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8th respondent (Fubara) started the prevention of the sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly… long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose,” the judgment notes.

This timeline, the court argued, exposes Fubara’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution—along with the doctrine of necessity—as a “red herring” to perpetuate his “brazen subversion” of the legislature.

Section 102, which allows a House to act despite vacancies, was deemed inapplicable to a scenario where over 90% of members were illegally excluded. “A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the Government of a State under the 1999 Constitution,” Agim declared, accusing Fubara of collapsing the legislature to rule as a “despot.”

The Doctrine of Necessity Rejected Fubara’s invocation of the doctrine of necessity—a legal principle used in extraordinary circumstances to preserve public interest—drew particular ire from the court.

Agim dismissed it as an attempt to justify “a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo.” He clarified that the doctrine applies only to genuine, unforeseen situations, not to self-inflicted crises like Fubara’s “fear of impeachment” by the Assembly.

“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person,” the judgment asserts.

There is no government in Rivers State

The court’s analysis here is compelling: by shutting down the Assembly complex, blocking access, and aligning with a minority faction, Fubara effectively dismantled the legislative arm, leaving Rivers State without a functioning government.

“As it is, there is no government in Rivers State,” Agim wrote—a stark indictment that underscores the gravity of the crisis.

The Supreme Court’s restoration of the Amaewhule-led Assembly carries significant consequences. Affirming the Federal High Court’s ruling in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024, the court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation to withhold all funds to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is enacted by a properly constituted Assembly.

 Amaewhule and the 26 other members resume their legislative duties unhindered

This financial stranglehold aims to compel compliance with constitutional norms, effectively tying Fubara’s hands until he engages with Amaewhule’s leadership.

Additionally, the court mandated that Amaewhule and the 26 other members resume their legislative duties “unhindered” and that the Assembly “resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”

This directive not only reinstates the status quo but also signals an end to Fubara’s attempts to govern through a rump legislature.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a masterclass in constitutional interpretation, reaffirming the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution over political expediency.

By rejecting Fubara’s maneuvers, the court has bolstered the separation of powers, ensuring that no single arm—particularly the executive—can unilaterally dismantle another.

The emphasis on evidence (or lack thereof) in the defection saga highlights a judiciary unwilling to be swayed by political theater, a stance that could set a precedent for future disputes.

PANDYEF), have called it a “declaration of war

Yet, this decision is not without controversy. Critics, including some Rivers stakeholders like the Pan Niger Delta Youths (PANDYEF), have called it a “declaration of war” on the state, arguing that it entrenches the influence of Nyesom Wike at the expense of Fubara’s administration.

The financial embargo, in particular, risks paralyzing governance, potentially fueling unrest in an already volatile region. Fubara, while pledging to implement the judgment, has expressed disagreement, hinting at further tension.

For Amaewhule and his allies, the ruling is a triumph, validating their claim to legitimacy and reinforcing their alignment with Wike’s political machine. However, it also places them under scrutiny to deliver on legislative duties amidst a polarized climate.

Nyesom Wike

The Supreme Court’s judgment is more than a legal victory for Martin Amaewhule—it’s a clarion call for adherence to constitutional governance.

By exposing Fubara’s actions as an unconstitutional overreach, the court has sought to restore balance to Rivers State’s fractured political landscape.

Whether this ruling heals or deepens the state’s wounds remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the battle for Rivers’ soul is far from over. As the Amaewhule-led Assembly resumes, all eyes will be on how this saga reshapes power dynamics in Nigeria’s turbulent south-south region.

Read Also: Natasha: Akpabio faces a chaotic future