In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld a Federal High Court decision, prohibiting the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation from disbursing statutory monthly allocations to Rivers State. The apex court also recognised the Martins Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly as the legitimate lawmakers.

The ruling, delivered on Friday, February 28, 2025, is a significant development in the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State. The crisis began when Governor Siminalayi Fubara presented the 2024 appropriation bill to a four-member House of Assembly, sparking controversy over the legitimacy of the assembly.

The Supreme Court’s decision criticised Governor Fubara’s actions, describing them as “dictatorial” and aimed at obstructing the legitimate functions of the Amaewhule-led Assembly. The court also condemned the demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex, labeling it an abuse of executive power intended to frustrate the legislative process.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that the 27 lawmakers accused of defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) remain legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly until a final decision is reached in the suit challenging their status. The court also directed the Martins Amaewhule-led faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly, along with other elected members, to resume legislative sittings.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling are far-reaching. The blocking of funds to Rivers State is likely to have significant economic implications for the state, while the recognition of the Amaewhule-led assembly is a major blow to Governor Fubara’s administration.

The ruling has sparked anxiety across Rivers State, with many residents expressing concern about the potential consequences of the decision. The state’s political leaders have also reacted to the ruling, with some hailing it as a victory for democracy and others condemning it as a setback for the state’s development.

As the situation in Rivers State continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for the state’s political landscape and its residents. The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining the next steps for the state’s government and its people.

Background to the Crisis

The crisis in Rivers State began when Governor Fubara presented the 2024 appropriation bill to a four-member House of Assembly, sparking controversy over the legitimacy of the assembly. The Amaewhule-led faction of the assembly challenged the governor’s actions in court, leading to the Federal High Court’s decision to block funds to the state.

Reaction to the Ruling

The ruling has sparked a mixed reaction from politicians and residents in Rivers State. Some have hailed it as a victory for democracy, while others have condemned it as a setback for the state’s development.

“I welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is a victory for democracy and the rule of law,” said a spokesperson for the Amaewhule-led faction of the assembly. “We will continue to work towards the development of Rivers State, despite the challenges posed by the governor’s administration.”

On the other hand, a spokesperson for Governor Fubara’s administration described the ruling as “unfortunate” and “a setback for the state’s development.”

“We will continue to work towards the development of Rivers State, despite the challenges posed by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” the spokesperson said.

What Next?

The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for the future of Rivers State. The blocking of funds to the state is likely to have far-reaching economic consequences, while the recognition of the Amaewhule-led assembly is a major blow to Governor Fubara’s administration.

As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining the next steps for the state’s government and its people. Will the governor’s administration appeal the ruling, or will they work towards resolving the crisis through dialogue?