In Rivers State, various lawyers, stakeholders, political analysts, and political figures have strongly criticized the recent Federal High Court ruling in Abuja, which prevents the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from continuing financial allocations to the Rivers State government under Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s administration. This judgment, delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Wednesday, restricts the CBN from releasing funds until a legitimate appropriation act is passed by a properly constituted House of Assembly.
The court’s decision responded to a lawsuit from the Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Martins Amaewhule and aligned with former governor Nyesom Wike. Justice Abdulmalik ruled that Governor Fubara’s presentation of the 2024 Appropriation Bill to an improperly formed four-member Assembly was invalid, effectively halting any further funding until legislative requirements are met.
Reacting to the ruling, lawyer and political analyst Dr. Chukwuma Chinwo condemned it, calling it a troubling instance of the judiciary being used as a political tool. Chinwo cautioned that upholding this judgment could push Nigeria towards democratic erosion, expressing concerns over federal overreach. “It is unfortunate that the Federal High Court, without clear authority in state governance matters, has issued such a decision,” Chinwo remarked, criticizing the judiciary for catering to political agendas rather than fostering equity and justice.
Chinwo also warned that unchecked developments in Rivers State risk undermining democracy, highlighting the perceived influence of former governor Wike in the situation. Many have called on the President to address Wike’s role as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, though action remains absent. He emphasized that political conflicts ultimately harm the public and urged a more constructive resolution.
Similarly, legal expert Living Jamala condemned the ruling, describing it as both legally and morally flawed. Jamala referenced a 2004 Supreme Court ruling in Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation, which barred the federal government from withholding state allocations due to constitutional infractions. Jamala argued that this precedent contradicts the Federal High Court’s judgment, stressing that issues of state revenue fall outside the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction.