The ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Mr. Femi Falana SAN appeared on a television programme to proffer yet another misleading interpretation
By Moses Okorie
The House of Representatives member from Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State, Rep. Solomon T. Bob has dismissed claims by Rivers State governor, Siminilayi Fubara and that of Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) over the Supreme Court Judgement delivered on January 10, 2025 on the case between the governor and the 27-member Martin Amaewhule-led Rivers State House of Assembly believed to be loyal to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Barrister Nyesom Wike.
In a press statement issued, weekend, Rep. Bob insisted that on 10th January, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld the judgment of Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit N0 FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.
According to him, Justice Omotosho’s judgment, which was delivered on 22nd January 2024, touched on the entirety of the issues at the centre of the crisis, including: leadership and membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly, and presentation of the 2024 appropriation law or any presentations to the House of Assembly.
He said the judgment does not address question of the 2024 budget presentation alone, but all subsequent presentations, including that of 2025, requests or nominations before the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“However, the ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Mr. Femi Falana SAN appeared on a television programme to proffer yet another misleading interpretation.
“In his presentation, Mr Falana claimed that the dismissed appeal related only to the 2024 appropriation law and, therefore, merely academic.
“As the above order shows, Mr. Falana was wrong. He was also downplaying the dire ramifications of spending without an appropriation law.
“He also claimed that the dismissed appeal did not touch on the question of membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“Indeed, virtually all the reliefs sought and granted by the Federal High Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal affirm the subsisting membership of the House of Assembly by the 27 legislators”, Bob said.
He averred that by reason of section 272(3) of the constitution, only the Federal High Court is vested with jurisdiction on any question of vacancy in the seats of a House of Assembly.
He said Justice Omotosho’s judgment, with the affirming appeals, remains the only decision by a court with the requisite jurisdiction to have pronounced on the status of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, warning that Mr. Falana’s insistence that they have lost their seats is outrageous.
“Contrary to his vaunted opinion, section 109(1)(g) of the constitution is not self-executory. And realistically, under a constitutional democracy, no law is. Because every constitutional provision is ultimately subject to judicial interpretation. To suggest otherwise is to deny the imperative of judicial review.
“I am dismayed by Mr. Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public with respect to the Rivers crisis.
“Often presenting his brief to the appotheosizing lay public as public interest advocacy, Mr. Falana eagerly justifies dangerous out-of-control behaviour and egregious constitutional abuse in Rivers State; the type he would certainly not accept in his native Ekiti.
“Nigeria’s recent history is regrettably replete with instances of defections right across state (and federal) legislatures. Mr. Falana has not been straining at the leash to make the same case in other instances.
“In his many public appearances on the Rivers crisis, he has employed self-serving sophistry and hollow whataboutism to justify every illegality and absurdity, including that 3 members can constitute the legal quorum in a House of as yet 30 members!”
The federal lawmaker suggested that Falana should separate his animus towards an individual from his exposition of the law and have the humility to admit that he is not the law, because no matter how much legal knowledge he professes, his opinion remains his personal and cannot approximate to the law.
He added that as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said, the law is “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact…”