Dons Eze
REACTIONS TRAIL APPEAL COURT’S JUDGEMENT VACATING RESTRAINING ORDER ON PRO-WIKE LAWMAKERS AS MEMBERS OF RIVERS HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
The Court of Appeal, Abuja, on Thursday, the judgement which vacated the restraining order by a Port Harcourt Court on Martin Amaewhule and his group of 24 legislators in Rivers State has elicited varying reactions.
The reactions as expected are based on the side of the divide and interest the individual arguing from standing as most persons usually want to interpret issues and judgments on the ongoing political crisis in Rivers from personal perspectives.
While the key individuals in the case, the Martin Amaewhule-led assembly and actors of the Rivers State government chose to maintain silence on the matter, the Rivers APC led by Sir Tony Okocha and some lawyers in the state have bared their minds on the appellate card judgment.
Speaking, “I Port Harcourt shortly after the judgment was delivered in Abuja, Okacha enthused; I don’t know of any sweeter moment than this because the Court of Appeal judgment has come to settle gray areas in our society”.
He added that he had always warned that the state was sitting on a keg of gunpowder and that at some point it was a regime of supermarket orders”.
He expressed joy with the appellate court for according to him throwing the High Court order on Amaewhule and his group to the thrash can saying that by its decision the has rendered the order a nullity.
Okocha said; “The Court of Appeal said it (the High Court) did not have jurisdiction over the matter. “At the end of the day, as meticulous as they are I commend their industry. It is a perfect reasoning that they have espoused.
“The worst any other person can do is to see whether they can approach the Supreme Court and I do not know how the Supreme Court will say that a judge that has no jurisdiction over a matter and assumed jurisdiction that the court is right”.
He added; “I think the Court of Appeal should recommend that judge for scrutiny by the NJC, so that some of them will learn their lessons. He knew it was deliberate, it was the pecuniary interest that must have led him.
“So all matters, Omotosho, CN Wali are all dead. The only matter alive today is that of the Court of Appeal said that the status quo should remain. But the status quo, so that we are also careful not to allow several individuals who now masquerade as pocket lawyers to give their own interpretation based on their divide.
“The court said the status quo before the matter was at all instituted in any court. So what is the implementation, that Martin Amaewhule is the Speaker and that Martin has all the powers? And from all that they said it means that all the actions taken by the so-called 3-member assembly who were even on suspension before this time. The speaker, the deputy speaker and the Deputy leader 3 members.
“All the actions they had gotten involved in, they are nullified; the Commissioners they screened, the so-called attorney general”.
But in his own reaction, a constitutional lawyer, Prof. Richard Wokocha, said the judgment does not legitimise the position of Martin Amaewhule and his group as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Prof. Wokocha, a lecturer at the Department of Public Law, Rivers State University, said that the appellate court in its judgment affirmed that the High Court presided over by Charles Wali does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter as well as restrain the appellants from sitting.
He emphasised that the court judgment did not affect their membership status.
He said; “The Court of Appeal has acted on the position of the party, it has not declared that they are lawful members of the house assembly despite decamping. It did not deal with the issue of decamping and its effect. It simply holds that the High Court of Rivers State presided over by Justice Wali was wrong to handle the case because it has no jurisdiction and ought not to have entertained the matter. It did not go to validate anything, the court of appeal did not say that their decamping was legitimate and that they can proceed as members, notwithstanding the issue of their having decamped”.
He added that with the Appeal Court ruling, Martin Amaewhule and 25 others can continue to have their meetings but the validity of those meetings remained invalid until the Federal High Court decided on the existing matter before it that their decamping was not inconsistent with the constitution.
Prof Wokocha stressed, “they can continue to have their meetings but whatever they do it has no effect unless the Federal High Court on the existing matter decides that their decamping was not inconsistent with the constitution and that the declaration of their seats as being vacant was wrongly done. Until that is decided they are still not members of the House of Assembly. It is the assembly that declares not the court. The court entertains the question whether the declaration was properly made or otherwise”.
Also a human rights lawyer, Henry Ekine said that the Court of Appeal never entertained the issue of Martin Amaewhule and his group because it was not before the court.“Having vacated their offices or seats on the 11th of December 2023, that before the Federal High Court has not been determined. That is not how it works. If Martin Amaewhule feels dissatisfied with any existing decision, even if it is a High Court of a state that has not been appealed against, it remains valid”, he said.
