Jan. 30, 2024
A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, dismissed the suit seeking to stop Gov. Siminalayi Fubara from re-presenting the N800 billion 2024 budget of Rivers.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a ruling, also set aside the earlier interim order made on Jan. 22, directing parties in the suit to maintain a status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Abdulmalik held that a similar suit in the matter had already been decided by a sister court on the day the interim order was granted.
Besides, the judge held that the plaintiffs’ counsel, David Maduka, lost the opportunity that would have afforded him to be heard when he failed to address the court on the propriety of the instant suit in the face of the judgment already delivered in a similar case.
The five-member Rivers House of Assembly led by the then factional Speaker, Edison Ehie, had, on Dec. 13, 2023, passed the appropriation bill sent to it by Fubara and the governor assented to the bill on Dec. 14, 2023.
But Justice James Omotosho, a brother judge, had, in the judgement delivered on Jan. 22, set aside the Rivers’ N800 billion 2024 budget passed by the five members of the house and signed into law by Gov. Fubara on Dec. 14, 2023.
Justice Omotosho also restrained Gov. Fubara from frustrating the house of assembly, under Martin Amaewhule-led leadership, from sitting or interfering in its constitutional and legislative functions.
The judge equally barred the National Assembly, the police and any member of the state executive arm from interfering in the assembly’s affairs.
But Justice Abdulmalik, on the same day, granted the ex-parte order filed by six elders of the state, who were plaintiffs in the suit.
They are Hon. Victor Okon Jumbo, a member of the Rivers assembly representing Bonny State Constituency; Sen. Bennett Birabi, Sen. Andrew Uchendu, Rear Admiral O.P. Fingesi, Ann Kio Briggs and Emmanuel Deinma.
The judge, in a ruling, directed the parties not to take further steps, pending the determination of the application seeking to stop Fubara from re-presenting the already passed 2024 budget before the legislative house.
The plaintiffs equally, through their lawyer, Kayode Ajulo, SAN, sought an order declaring the seats of the 27 lawmakers who dumped Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for All Progressives Congress (APC) vacant, among other reliefs.
They queried the constitutionality of a peace agreement they alleged that President Tinubu made governor Fubara to enter into with the immediate-past governor of the state and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike.
They maintained that the said agreement that was signed on December 18, 2023, was not only illegal, but amounted to an usurpation, nullification and undermining of the extant/binding relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The plaintiffs, consequently, prayed the court to among other things, determine whether Tinubu, Fubara and the Rivers assembly had the rights and entitled to enter into any agreement that had the effect of nullifying or undermining the constitutional provisions of Section 109 (I) (g) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.
Justice Abdulmalik, who fixed Feb. 28 to hear the application, directed that the defendants which include President Bola Tinubu, Attorney-General of the Federal, Fubara, Rivers assembly, assembly’s speaker and Independent National Electoral Commission, be put on notice in order to respond to allegations raised.
But the six plaintiffs filed another motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1718/2023.
In the motion dated Jan. 24 and filed Jan. 25, they sought an order granting accelerated hearing in the suit.
The also sought an order abridging the time within which the defendants could file all their processes, including the plaintiffs’ reply and the court fixed the hearing for today.
When the matter was called, Maduka, who appeared for the six elders, told the court of their motion ex-parte.
The lawyer urged the court to grant their two prayers.
But Justice Abdulmalik called Maduka’s attention to Jan. 22 judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho.
She said that at the time the interim order was granted, there was a judgment which is on a matter similar to the present suit.
The judge then ordered Maduka to address the court on the judgment which had already settled the case brought before her.
Responding, the lawyer said he was unaware of the judgment.
“I have not been able to see that judgment my lord. If I have seen it, I would have been able to address the court,” he said.
Maduka prayed the court to stand down the matter to enable him get the judgment so he could properly address the court.
She held that Maduka had lost the opportunity to afford him of fair hearing.
She said: “Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs/applicants are privy to that judgement,” which barred the parties from acting in contrary to the decision of the court.
According to the judge, the plaintiffs/applicants are at liberty to study that judgment to know which way to go.
Therefore, she held that the motion ex-parte filed on Jan. 25 had been overtaken by event.
Justice Abdulmalik, who vacated the earlier interim order, dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Although Maduka stood up to explain that he was not deliberately avoiding to address the court, the judge did not give him a listening ear.(NAN)
