The recent Supreme Court ruling directing the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State has sparked intense legal and political debates.
Former governorship aspirant and ex-lawmaker Hon. Farah Dagogo, in an interview with Newspotng, provided insights into the judgment, its implications, and possible steps the Rivers State Government can take to challenge or navigate the decision.
Dagogo’s perspective centers on legal principles, constitutional provisions, and judicial precedents that could serve as remedies for Rivers State. He argues that while the Supreme Court’s ruling is final, there are still legal pathways that Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s administration can explore.
The crisis in Rivers State began when 27 members of the state’s House of Assembly allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). According to Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended), lawmakers who defect without a clear division in their party are supposed to vacate their seats. However, the Supreme Court found no concrete evidence of defection, allowing the lawmakers to retain their positions.
As a consequence of this ruling, the Supreme Court ordered that Rivers State’s federal allocations be suspended until the lawmakers passed the state’s budget. This decision has raised concerns about the financial autonomy of states and whether the judiciary has the power to halt funds meant for governance.
Dagogo emphasizes that the ruling contradicts the established principle that a smaller panel of Supreme Court justices cannot overrule a decision made by a larger panel. He cites the case of Sodeinde Bros. Ltd v. ACB Ltd, where it was established that judicial consistency must be maintained to uphold the integrity of the legal system.
Although Supreme Court decisions are binding, there are legal and constitutional approaches that the Rivers State Government can take to challenge the allocation stoppage. Dagogo outlines several possible strategies:
1. Filing a Motion for Review
Under Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court has the power to review its own judgment in exceptional circumstances. These circumstances include clerical errors, fraud, or fundamental jurisdictional mistakes.
Dagogo references Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, where the Supreme Court ruled that it could review its judgment in specific situations. Another relevant case, Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422, reaffirmed that the court would only revisit a ruling if there was substantial new evidence or a jurisdictional issue.
For Rivers State to successfully pursue this option, it would need to:
- Identify a jurisdictional error in the ruling, particularly regarding the authority of the Supreme Court to suspend state allocations.
- Provide new evidence that could alter the legal reasoning behind the judgment.
- Engage top constitutional lawyers to file a well-grounded motion citing legal precedents.
2. Legislative Intervention at the National Assembly
The National Assembly has the power to enact laws that could counteract the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling. This approach would involve:
- Drafting a bill to reinforce the constitutional guarantee of state financial autonomy, ensuring that federal allocations cannot be withheld as a punitive measure.
- Lobbying lawmakers to fast-track the bill’s passage, emphasizing that such a precedent could negatively impact other states in the future.
- Seeking support from legal and civil society organizations to advocate for the protection of state funds.
Dagogo references the case of Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.833) 1, where the court acknowledged that new legislation could alter the legal framework governing financial allocations.
3. Constitutional Amendment
If legislative intervention fails, another long-term solution is a constitutional amendment to explicitly prevent the judiciary from interfering in the disbursement of state allocations. While constitutional amendments require a lengthy process—including approval from two-thirds of state assemblies—this approach could provide lasting protection for states against similar judicial overreach in the future.
4. Filing a Petition at the ECOWAS Court of Justice
If the Rivers State Government believes that the Supreme Court ruling violates fundamental human rights—such as the right to governance and development—it can file a petition at the ECOWAS Court of Justice. This court handles cases where national judicial systems have failed to provide justice.
Although ECOWAS rulings are not always enforceable, a favorable judgment could put international pressure on the Nigerian government to revisit the Supreme Court’s decision.
While exploring legal remedies, Rivers State must also find ways to maintain financial stability. Some options include:
- Boosting Internally Generated Revenue (IGR): The state government can focus on improving tax collection, enhancing transparency, and diversifying revenue sources to reduce dependence on federal allocations.
- Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Partnering with private investors on infrastructure and social projects can help sustain development despite the funding crisis.
- Cost-Cutting Measures: Temporarily reducing non-essential expenditures can help the government prioritize critical services such as healthcare, education, and security.
Beyond legal and financial measures, Dagogo emphasizes that a political solution is crucial for lasting stability in Rivers State. He urges both Governor Fubara and the lawmakers to engage in dialogue and find common ground.
“The real crisis in Rivers State is between the Executive and the Legislature,” Dagogo states. “The judiciary is only there to adjudicate. Both sides must be willing to make compromises in the interest of the people.”
He commends Governor Fubara for extending an olive branch by inviting lawmakers for discussions on passing the budget. He urges the legislators to reciprocate this gesture and work towards governance rather than personal or party interests.
Way Forward for Rivers State Local Government Elections
Another contentious issue in Rivers State politics is the Supreme Court’s decision to nullify the October 5, 2024, local government elections. The court ruled that the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) violated Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022 by failing to issue the mandatory 90-day notice before the election.
Dagogo suggests that to move forward, the Rivers State Government should:
- Conduct fresh elections in compliance with electoral laws to restore legitimacy to local governance.
- Consider reconstituting RSIEC to ensure credibility and public trust in the election process.
- Engage INEC and security agencies to provide necessary support for a transparent electoral process.
