The Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial judgment that sought to seize the statutory allocation and revenue of Rivers State, a move supported by the Minister of FCT, Nyesom Wike.
The opposition coalition has praised the ruling as a victory for the rule of law and a significant setback for those trying to undermine the judiciary.
Justice Hamma Akawu Barka ruled on December 13, 2024, that the Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, stating that issues involving state revenue should be handled by state courts.
Rivers State’s legal counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, argued successfully that federal courts should not have authority over disputes concerning the state’s revenue.
The ruling was met with celebrations in Rivers State, with residents expressing their joy in the streets. The opposition coalition, including groups such as the Human Rights Writers’ Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), Joint Action for Democracy, and Lawyers in Defence of Democracy, hailed the judgment as a crucial step in protecting federalism and upholding constitutional democracy.
The Opposition Lawmakers Coalition praised the ruling, stating that it preserved the integrity of the state and the country’s democratic framework. They criticized the pro-Wike faction for attempting to manipulate the courts for political gain and commended the Appeal Court for preventing further chaos.
The spokesperson for the Opposition Lawmakers Coalition, Hon. Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, highlighted the ongoing legal issues in Rivers State and emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law in the face of political interference.
Ugochinyere stated that the decision to nullify the judgment of the Federal High Court was a positive development for the rule of law, federalism, and constitutional governance in Nigeria. He called on all Nigerians to support the decision and uphold the principles of democratic governance.
The Opposition Lawmakers Coalition criticized those seeking to seize Rivers State’s allocation and revenue for political motives, describing their actions as attempts to undermine democracy and cause harm to innocent people. They viewed the Appeal Court’s ruling as a defeat for those trying to use the legal system for personal vendettas.
