How Rivers Govt can approach S’Court judgement on allocation stoppage – Farah Dagogo

Hon. Farah Dagogo was a former governorship aspirant in the 2023 Rivers State election. He was at different times a member of the National Assembly (House of Representatives) and State House of Assembly.

In this interview with Ekwutosblog, he gives insight into the recent Supreme Court judgement on Rivers State political crises, steps that the Governor and the House of Assembly need to take for lasting peace. He also advised against tenure elongation of Local Government chairmen just as he gave instances on how the judgement on stoppage of allocations can be challenged. Excerpts!

Is the Supreme Court order on seizure of allocations to Rivers State justified?

The principle that a smaller panel of judges cannot overrule a larger panel within the same court is fundamental to maintaining judicial consistency and stability. In the context of the Nigerian Supreme Court, this doctrine ensures that legal precedents are respected unless reconsidered by an equal or larger bench.

In Nigeria, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates that decisions of higher courts bind lower courts, and courts of equal standing should follow established precedents. Specifically, a smaller panel, such as a five-justice bench, should not overrule the decision of a larger panel, like a seven-justice bench. This hierarchy preserves the integrity and predictability of the legal system. For instance, in Sodeinde Bros. Ltd v. ACB Ltd, the Supreme Court emphasized that a five-person panel cannot overrule or depart from the decision of a panel of equal or larger number.

The recent events in Rivers State have brought this principle into sharp focus.

The crisis began when 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Under Nigerian law, specifically the 1999 Constitution (as amended) lawmakers are expected to vacate their seats upon defection unless their original party is factionalized. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the claim that these lawmakers had defected, thereby rejecting the assertion that they had lost their seats.

You recall that a five-justice panel of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of defection by the 27 lawmakers, effectively restoring their positions in the House. This decision raises concerns about adherence to judicial hierarchy, as it appears to conflict with the established precedent that a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger one. The ruling also ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State until the budget was passed by the reinstated lawmakers, a move that has been criticized as punitive towards the state’s populace.

This brings to bear analysis of Judicial Authority and Case Law. The Supreme Court’s decision to have a five-justice panel address an issue previously settled by a seven-justice panel contradicts the established judicial practice of panel hierarchy and overruling precedents. Such actions can undermine the consistency and reliability of legal precedents. As noted in legal analyses, the present panel size weakens the institutional voice of the Supreme Court and is potentially harmful to its integrity.

The 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulates that lawmakers who defect from their political parties without justifiable reasons, such as a division within the party, must vacate their seats. In this case, the Supreme Court found no evidence of defection, thereby allowing the lawmakers to retain their positions. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate but raises questions about the court’s consistency in applying these provisions. I am giving all these backgrounds so you have an idea of how the law works or operates.

To your question on withholding of Federal Allocations to the state, the Supreme Court’s directive to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State introduces a complex constitutional issue. While the court aims to enforce legislative compliance, such financial sanctions could be seen as overreach, potentially violating the principles of federalism and the financial autonomy of state governments.

To surmise it, the Supreme Court’s handling of the Rivers State legislative crisis highlights critical issues concerning judicial hierarchy, adherence to constitutional provisions, and the balance of powers within Nigeria’s federal structure. Departing from established precedents without convening an appropriate panel size undermines the judiciary’s credibility and the doctrine of stare decisis. Moreover, punitive measures affecting state finances may set a concerning precedent for federal-state relations. It is imperative for the judiciary to uphold its foundational principles to maintain public trust and ensure the rule of law.