Actions against Fubara contain elements of treason, says CISLAC
The Supreme Court has, through a Certified True Copy (CTC) of its judgment on the political crisis in Rivers State, explained why it restored the Martin Amaewhule-led leadership of the House of Assembly.
However, the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) has described as a treasonable felony, the actions perpetrated against Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers since he assumed office.
Legal Manager of the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), CISLAC, Gimba Hassan, made this assertion in a statement, yesterday, in Abuja.
The apex court in a 62-page judgment obtained, yesterday, by The Guardian, made it clear that there was no shred of evidence to support the claim of defection made against the 27 Assembly members from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
To worsen the situation, the Supreme Court, in the judgment signed by Justice Emmanuel Agim, said Governor Fubara, who raised the allegations of defection against the 27 lawmakers of his own volition, withdrew the allegations at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
By not supporting the defection claim against the Amaewhule-led Assembly, the apex court held that in the eyes of the law, no defection took place and consequently the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.
Justice Agim, who endorsed the judgment copy, specifically held that there could not be any House of Assembly unless as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, adding that the Constitution did not envisage or support the position of Fubara to recognise only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.
Consequently, the apex court held that it was an aberration for Fubara to make any request, nomination and presentation to the House of Assembly unless the one led by Amaewhule and believed to be loyal to the faction of the former governor, Nyesom Wike.
“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 constituted by the number of members as prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose. The said activities of the 8th respondent were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in appeal no: CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started.
“Against the background of these concurrent findings and holdings in the Court of Appeal judgment in appeal no: CA/AB)/CV/133/2024, it is reasonable to conclude that the cross appellant’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity is to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State.”
According to the judgment, having by his admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 members of the House of Assembly from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties, which they were elected to do, his resort to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity based on his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers.
The apex court also ruled: “For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and officials any money belonging to Rivers until an Appropriation Law is made by the House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.
“Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”
ACCORDING to Hassan, the actions targeted at the governor violate the Criminal Code of the 1999 Constitution.
He stated: “It is my belief that some of the actions against Fubara contain elements of treason under Section 37 of the Criminal Code Act and treasonable felony under Section 40 of the same Act.
“When you examine the use of violence against the governor, the burning of the House of Assembly, the withdrawal of his security and the deployment of thugs to take over local councils during elections, it becomes clear that these acts were intended to intimidate and overpower the governor, which falls within the legal definitions of treason and treasonable felony. This is especially worrisome in a country where even peaceful protests by minors are sometimes treated as treason.”
Hassan noted that the Rivers Assembly’s 48-hour ultimatum for the governor to re-present the budget was unlawful and lacked legal backing.
Citing El-Rufai vs House of Representatives (2003) and the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, he explained that a minimum of seven days’ notice was required for a valid legislative summons.
He emphasised that the ultimatum was a clear violation of established legal and parliamentary procedures.
“With its judgment, the Supreme Court has effectively stalled governance in Rivers, and the Assembly is worsening the crisis by proceeding on a 12-week recess. This is despite that the House had virtually no legislative activity for months while the matter was in court.
“Our Constitution begins with the phrase ‘We the People…’ It is the people who gave power to our institutions, elected the governor and his deputy, and voted for the members of the State Assembly,” he said.
Hassan, therefore, urged leaders in Rivers to put aside their differences and prioritise governance, emphasising that the suffering of the people must end.
Discussion about this post