Court strikes out suit challenging legality of presidential peace pact in Rivers
State govt describes ruling on 2024 budget as sad, unfair
ARIVERS State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has struck out a suit brought before it seeking an interpretation of the legal stance of the presidential peace proclamation on the political issues in the state for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The suit, which was filed by 10 representatives of Rivers indigenes, led by Anabs SaraIgbe, as applicants, while President Bola Tinubu, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, Martin Amaewhule, Rivers State House of Assembly and the Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP) are the respondents.
Sara- Igbe and nine others had approached the court in a bid to seek constitutional interpretation on whether the eight- point resolution by the President, in resolving the political impasse in the state, is consistent with sections of the Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
The applicants also sought the interpretation of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, on whether the President has the legal right to direct the governor to represent the 2024 budget to 24 members of the House of Assembly led by Amaewhule even after their seats were declared vacant.
However, when the matter came up, yesterday, the presiding judge, Justice Chin - wendu Nworgu, did not allow for any motion, but delivered a ruling, declining jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Nworgu cited the judgment of James Omotosho of Abuja High Court, which nullified activities of the Edison Ehieled faction of the Assembly. M EANWHILE, Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communication, Joe Johnson, has described the Federal High Court ruling, in Abuja, ordering Governor Siminilayi Fubara to represent the 2024 budget to the State House of Assembly, led by Amaewhule group, as sad development and unfair .
The Commissioner said that the Justice James Omotosho Federal High Court was aware that the state government had already withdrawn the matter in obedience to President Bola Tinubu’s directive, yet it went ahead to deliver judgment in the same matter.
Johnson insisted that the decision of the court to deliver judgement on a matter already withdrawn from court was unfair and regretful.
He said: “The President directed that the governor and his lawyers should withdraw all cases; and we did so in obedience to the directive. The judge that went ahead to give such judgment didn’t give us fair hearing.”