An Abuja Federal High Court presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik has recently ordered the halt of the release of federal monthly allocations from the consolidated funds to the Rivers State Government. The order stems from allegations that Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, presented the 2024 budget to an assembly of only four members, rather than a fully constituted legislative body. Consequently, Justice Abdulmalik ruled that this action violates the constitutional requirement for budget presentation and approval by a legitimate legislative assembly.
She, therefore, ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria and other banks to halt the disbursement of federal funds to Rivers State until proper legislative processes are followed. Justice Abdulmalik described Fubara’s receipt and disbursement of monthly allocations since January as a constitutional aberration that must not be allowed. She further held that Fubara’s action in implementing an unlawful budget amounted to a gross violation of the 1999 Constitution, which he swore to protect. Additionally, Justice Abdulmalik noted that the judgment of the Rivers State High Court, which had ruled in favour of Fubara to implement the 2024 budget, had been set aside by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
However, Justice Abdulmalik’s judgment, which contradicts prior rulings on this matter, is causing significant political controversy. The judgment is reminiscent of the unilateral withholding of local government allocations to Lagos State in 2004 by former President Olusegun Obasanjo because the state’s creation of 37 new local councils was unconstitutional. So far, the Rivers State Government has appealed Abdulmalik’s judgment. Similarly, the Rivers State Government has appealed to the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeal judgment delivered earlier this year by Justice James Omotosho, which held that the Rivers State budget was illegal because an inchoate House of Assembly passed it.
Considering that the matter is sub judice (pending before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court), Justice Abdulmalik’s Federal High Court ought to have struck it out instead of adjudicating it. It is disturbing that the High Court’s action might easily be perceived as a judicial connivance with unconscientious politicians, to undermine democracy and thereby tarnish the image of the judiciary. Otherwise, why delve into the matter when it is a subject of appeal at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court? The court should have struck it out rather than adjudicating on a sub judice matter.
The 1999 Constitution is very clear that states have the autonomy to conduct their affairs, and no individual politician or judicial officer should truncate that constitutional provision. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on the sanctity of state and local government allocations as sovereign wealth of the people that cannot be seized. Such funds are constitutional and can only be spent with the authority of the state or local government.
It will be recalled that after former President Olusegun Obasanjo unilaterally withheld local government allocations to Lagos State in 2004, the Lagos State Government filed a case against the federal government at the Supreme Court (Attorney General of Lagos State v. Attorney General of the Federation). The Supreme Court, led by Justice Muhammadu Uwais, ruled in favour of Lagos State, holding that the Federal Government’s withholding of the allocations was unconstitutional.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court, in the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorneys-General of the 36 States (SC/CV/343/2024), handed down a landmark judgment granting full financial autonomy to the country’s 774 local government areas (LGAs). The judgment mandates that funds from the Federation Account must go directly to the LGAs, bypassing state governments. Previously, these funds were often managed through joint state-local government accounts, giving state governors significant control. According to the court, this arrangement compromised local governance and violated the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of local governments.
This judgment has been widely praised as a significant step toward empowering local governments to prioritise grassroots development. With local councils now having more control over projects in healthcare, education, and infrastructure, state interference will no longer hinder their autonomy.
Despite this landmark judgment, the tension between former Governor Nyesom Wike and current Governor Siminalayi Fubara in Rivers State over the political control of the state persists. This reflects the power struggles that often characterize Nigerian politics. These tensions and conflicts have strained democratic institutions, undermined public trust in governance, and significantly tarnished the integrity of all arms of government in the state. If personal political ambitions lead to interference in the judiciary or democratic processes, it could set dangerous precedents for the rule of law and institutional integrity.
The deteriorating political situation in Rivers State underscores the importance of civic engagement and vigilance in holding leaders accountable for their actions. Citizens, civil society organisations, and human rights groups play a crucial role in safeguarding democracy and the judiciary. Protecting democracy and the judiciary requires collective action. Citizens must remain vigilant, united, and proactive in ensuring that political conflicts do not destabilise Rivers State’s democratic and legal foundations. Civil society groups should monitor judicial proceedings to ensure impartiality and transparency. Any evidence of judicial interference by political actors should be challenged through petitions and protests.
Advocates for Wike, Fubara, and other political figures should emphasise the state’s stability and democratic principles over personal ambitions. Amid allegations that some judicial officers are corrupt, the judiciary must jealously guard its independence and impartiality. A functioning democracy requires the judiciary to remain independent, impartial, and incorruptible.
Political leaders must prioritise the collective good over personal ambitions and refrain from interfering in the judiciary’s work. The judiciary must be insulated from partisan politics. Both Wike and Fubara should act consciously to avoid deepening divisions or eroding the governance foundations in Rivers State.
The judiciary is not just any arm of government; it is arguably the lifeblood of the other arms of government. The corruption of the judiciary is the worst tragedy that can befall a nation. Judicial corruption spells disaster, serving as a gateway to anarchy and retrogression. Like Caesar’s wife, judges should be above suspicion. Only incorruptible and irreproachable judges can redeem the image of the Nigerian judiciary.
There is no doubt that the integrity of the country’s judiciary has been threatened or undermined by the very people who should strive to maintain its prestige. This is truly disheartening. Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun should do everything within her authority and capacity to fully restore the integrity and honour of the country’s judiciary.
