A member of the House of Representatives and lawyer, Mr. Solomon Bob, has said that with the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara of Rivers State, the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the High Court decision on the presentation of the Rivers State budget stands.

The Supreme Court had dismissed Fubara’s appeal challenging the Appeal Court’s decision, which upheld the judgment of a Federal High Court stating that the governor was duty-bound to present the state’s 2024 budget to the Martin Amaewhule-led State House of Assembly.

Bob, representing Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State in the National Assembly, argued that since the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the order remains in force and also affects the 2025 state budget.

The Reps member said: “On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Governor Fubara against the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld the judgement of Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.

“Justice Omotosho’s judgement, delivered on January 22, 2024, touched on the entirety of the issues at the center of the crisis, including (a) leadership and membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly and (b) presentation of the 2024 appropriation law or any presentations to the House of Assembly.

“One of the judgement orders restrained the 11th defendant (Governor Fubara) from, in any way, making any request, presentation, or nomination in the Rivers State House of Assembly except to the House of Assembly under the leadership of the 2nd plaintiff (Speaker Martin Amaewhule).

“Clearly, the judgement does not address the question of the 2024 budget presentation alone but all subsequent presentations (including that of 2025), requests, or nominations before the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“However, the ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried when Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) appeared on a television program to proffer yet another misleading interpretation,” he said.

He regretted that Mr. Falana claimed the dismissed appeal related only to the 2024 appropriation law and was therefore merely academic.

“As the above order shows, Mr. Falana was wrong. He also downplayed the dire ramifications of spending without an appropriation law.

“He also claimed that the dismissed appeal did not touch on the question of membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

“Indeed, virtually all the reliefs sought and granted by the Federal High Court and the decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed the subsisting membership of the House of Assembly by the 27 legislators.

“By reason of Section 272(3) of the Constitution, only the Federal High Court is vested with jurisdiction on any question of vacancy in the seats of a House of Assembly,” he argued.