A Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court judgment on the political crisis in Rivers State has shed light on why the apex court restored the Hon Martin Amaewhule-led leadership of the State House of Assembly.

The apex court in a 62- page judgement obtained on Thursday by our correspondent made it clear that there was no iota or shred of evidence to support the claim of defection made against the 27 members of the House of Assembly from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

To worsen the situation, the Supreme Court in the judgement signed by Justice Emmanuel Agim said that the Rivers state governor, Siminalayi Fubara who raised the allegations of defection against the 27 lawmakers on his own volition withdrew the allegations at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

By not supporting the defection claim against the Amaewhule-led leadership, the apex court held that in the eyes of the law, no defection has taken place and consequently the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.

Justice Agim, who endorsed the judgement copy specifically held that there cannot be any House of Assembly unless as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution, adding that the Constitution did not envisage or support the position of governor Fubara to recognize only four members as the authentic House of Assembly.

Consequently, the apex court held that it is an aberration for Governor Fubara to make any request, nominations and presentations to the Rivers State House of Assembly unless the one led by Hon Martin Amaewhule and believed to be loyal to former governor Nyesom Wike faction.

“What is clear from the above concurrent findings is that the 8” respondent (Fubara) started the prevention of the sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by the number of members as prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose.

“The said activities of the 8” respondent (Fubara) were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its Judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started.

“Against the background of these concurrent findings and holdings In the Court of Appeal Judgment in Appeal No.CA/AB)/CV/133/2024, i is reasonable to conclude that the cross appellant’s reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity is to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, The 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State.

“Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State.

“The 8th respondent (Fubara) had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place.

“The daim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It Is an engagement in chicanery.

“Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise. Section 102. of the Constitution that provides that “A House of Assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate such proceedings”, cannot be relied on to validate the proceedings of a House of Assembly in the absence of over 90% of the members or to justify a vacancy created by the illegal exclusion of a member of the House or to justify the contrived illegal exclusion of 27 members and officials from the House and illegal shutting down of the House by destroying the legislative building and House of Assembly complex and blocking access to the place by legislators and officials of the House.

“A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the Government of a State under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Executive arm of the Government has chosen to collapse the Legislature to enable him govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.

“The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo. It cannot be invoked to justify and protect the illegal actions of the 8” respondent and his despotic rule of Rivers State without a House of Assembly.

“It applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which situations require the taking of some legitimate extra constitutional or extra legal actions to protect public interest.

“The 8″respondent’s fear of impeachment by the House Assembly is no justification for his attacks on the House of Assembly, the Constitution, the Government of Rivers State and rule of law.

“Political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the Governor of a State or any person. What the 8” respondent has done is to destroy the government because of his fear of being impeached.

“In the light of the foregoing, I hold that Cross-appeal No SC/CV/1175A/2024 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

“The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed. The said judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No.. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.

“For avoidance of doubt it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and Officials any money belonging to Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed y the !999 Constitution.

“The Rt Honorable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“The Rivers State House of Assembly Should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.

EFCC witness says ex-Kogi Gov Bello not involved in Govt House account, funds withdrawal

A witness of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mrs Abimbola Williams has told a Federal High Court in Abuja that the name of former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello did not feature in any of the account opening packages for Government House Bank account with the United Bank for Africa (UBA).

The witness, a Compliance Officer with UBA also admitted before the court that Bello’s name did not feature in all the withdrawals made from the account number 1003889575 managed by UBA for the Kogi Government House Administration while Yahaya Bello was the governor.

Testifying in a money laundering charges brought against the former governor by EFCC, the banker who was subpoenaed by court tendered the account opening packages for Government House Administration under the governorship of Bello.

The suboeana, according to the prosecution, requested for the production of the statement of account of one Maselina Njoku, from 1st January, 2019 to 31st December, 2020.

Led in evidence by EFCC counsel, Kemi Pinheiro SAN, the witness also tendered the account statements operated while Bello held sway as Chief Executive of Kogi state.

She read out series of withdrawals through cheques from the account for the government House operations.

Specifically, she named one Abdulsalami Hudu as the person handling fund withdrawals on behalf of the Government House.

However, under cross examination by Joseph Daudu SAN, the lead counsel to Yahaya Bello, the UBA Compliance Officer said that Bello’s name did not feature in virtually all transactions in respect of the bank account.

She also admitted that she was not the accounts officer of the Kogi Government House account and that the account is domiciled in Lokoja, Kogi State, and not in Area 3, Abuja, where she works.

The witness confirmed 10 withdrawals in favour of Abdulsalam Hudu, in the sum of N10 million each on December 12, 2018. She said the withdrawals were done with cheques and presented across the counter.

On cross-examination, the Defence Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, asked the witness that, as a compliance officer, does her duty involve protecting the integrity of the bank from legal penalty, reputational damage and financial losses? “Yes,” she responded.

The witness was also asked to name the three signatories on the account, which she did.

For Alhaji Yakubu Ismail, who was Permanent Secretary, she said, “We only have his picture on this form.”

Daudu SAN asked, “Now, in both the account opening documents and the statement of account from E1 to E72, does the name ‘Yahaya Bello’ appear anywhere?”

“No, the name Yahaya Bello does not feature,” the witness responded.

The Defendant’s lawyer again asked, “Please look at Exhibit 2P1-3P62. Does the name ‘Yahaya Bello’ appear anywhere in the document?”

“My Lord, the name Yahaya Bello does not feature on the exhibits,” the witness answered.

Daudu SAN therefore closed his cross-examination.

The EFCC Counsel, moved to re-examine the witness. Daudu, SAN objected, but the judge allowed him after a brief argument.

Pinheiro SAN then asked the witness if she was familiar with the signature on the document.

She said she signed on behalf of one Edward Bananga.

But the Defendant’s Counsel again objected and moved to cross-examine the witness.

“My Lord, the witness initially disowned the signature, but under re-examination, the prosecution led her to admit it. Therefore, I have the right to challenge that admission and prove that her claim regarding the signature is incorrect,” he said.

“Cross examination is meant to prove the accuracy or veracity of the witness. I am entitled to disprove what she said. This is in the interest of justice,” Daudu SAN added.

He then asked the witness to read the document.

Reading from the document, she said, “I Edward Bananga hereby certified and confirmed that……”

‘I put it to you that You are not Edward Bananga,” the Defendant’s Counsel said.

“I am not Edward Bananga my lord,” the witness answered.

Another witness, Nicholas Ohehomon, from the American International School, was presented by the prosecution.

The exhibits tendered included the school’s statements of account, admission letters of the children of the defendant and payment receipts. The witness confirmed the different classes the children were admitted into.

Exhibit 12P was also tendered, which was a contractual agreement for post-paid school fees for the children.

The Prosecution presented a letter from the EFCC to AIS, Abuja, through the Registrar. It was marked Exhibit 18 and an account provided by the EFCC for a refund.

The court, thereafter, adjourned to 7th March for continuation of trial.

Suspension within the Nigerian Senate is a serious matter that can arise from various controversies and allegations. Here is a detailed list of senators who have previously faced suspension, highlighting the circumstances surrounding their cases.

1. Femi Okurounmu (Ogun Central) – 1999
Senator Okurounmu was suspended in 1999 after making claims that fellow senators were conspiring to impeach President Olusegun Obasanjo. Following his suspension, he was later recalled to the Senate after he issued a formal apology.

2. Joseph Waku (Benue) – 2000
In the year 2000, Senator Waku sparked controversy by suggesting that a military coup would be a preferable alternative to what he described as President Obasanjo’s dictatorial rule. This provocative statement resulted in his suspension from the Senate.

3. Arthur Nzeribe (Imo, Orlu Constituency) – 2002
Senator Nzeribe faced indefinite suspension in November 2002 due to allegations involving a ₦22 million fraud. His suspension underscored the Senate’s intolerance for financial misconduct.

4. Isah Mohammed (Niger Central) – 2004
In October 2004, Senator Mohammed was suspended for two weeks following a physical altercation with Senator Iyabo Anisulowo outside the National Assembly lobby. The incident was reportedly linked to disputes over committee fund allocations.

5. Ali Ndume (Borno South) – 2017
Senator Ndume was suspended for six months in 2017 after he called for an investigation into allegations involving then Senate President Bukola Saraki and Senator Dino Melaye. His suspension highlighted the contentious political climate within the Senate.

6. Ovie Omo-Agege (Delta Central) – 2018
In 2018, Senator Omo-Agege was suspended for opposing the election reordering bill. Despite his subsequent apology, he sought a court order to prevent his suspension, which ultimately led to his suspension from the Senate.

7. Abdul Ningi (Bauchi Central) – 2024
Senator Ningi was suspended for three months in 2024 after alleging that the National Assembly had padded the 2024 budget by a staggering ₦3 trillion. His claims raised significant concerns about transparency and accountability within the legislature.

8. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (Kogi Central) – 2025
On the 6th of March, 2025, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended for six months due to allegations of misconduct within the Senate. This suspension reflects ongoing issues related to ethical conduct among lawmakers.

This list serves as a testament to the challenges and complexities faced by senators in Nigeria, where political tensions and allegations can lead to significant consequences. The suspensions not only impact the individuals involved but also have broader implications for governance and public trust in the legislative process.