Clark flays Omotoso’s ruling on Rivers Assembly

A Niger Delta leader and an elder statesman, Edwin Clark, has criticised the recent rulings by Justice James Omotoso and the Court of Appeal regarding the Rivers State House of Assembly.

In a statement, Clark argued that the judgments were “obtained by fraud,” pointing out that the former Speaker of the Assembly, Martins Amawhule, and other plaintiffs withheld crucial information from the court, which, if revealed, might have led to different outcomes.

He emphasised that judgments obtained by fraud do not implicate the integrity or competence of the judges.

Instead, he attributed the misrepresentations to the plaintiffs, who, he claimed, misled the courts by failing to disclose the full context of the Assembly’s internal conflicts.
He pointed out that Amawhule, along with 26 other members, defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) on December 11, 2023.

According to Section 109 (1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, their defection led to an automatic loss of seats, as the defectors no longer represented the party that sponsored them.

Clark asserted that Amawhule and his colleagues subsequently initiated another case, submitting conflicting statements under oath.

The elder statesman alleged that Justice Omotoso’s judgment, delivered on January 22, 2024, is void as it failed to recognise that the plaintiffs had ceased to be members of the House by their defection.
Furthermore, he raised concerns about Justice Okorowo’s involvement in halting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) efforts to fill the seats left vacant by the defectors prior to his promotion to the Court of Appeal.

Clark also criticised the Appeal Court’s response to the governor’s appeal against Justice Omotoso’s ruling, stating that the court’s remarks were unwarranted and failed to address the core issue of defection by the plaintiffs.

He called on the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to investigate Amawhule and his colleagues for potential perjury, alleging they made contradictory statements under oath regarding their party affiliations.

The statement reads: “First, it is necessary to explain to the public that judgement obtained by fraud has nothing to do with the integrity, disposition, character and competence of the Justices. In fact, they are not aware whether the judgement, the writ is obtained by fraud or not.

“It is what the litigants or party to a case present in their pleadings that the trial judge would concentrate on in writing his judgement. Anything different from the originating pleading will amount to a different judgment.

“So, the onus is on litigants to present truthful and factual statements and evidence before the courts. Like it is said, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as they would swear when taking oath.

“Judgment obtained by fraud is where facts, which should have been presented to a court of law to arrive at the correct decision are not presented or are fraudulently presented or the plaintiff was wrongly described and caused the court to arrive at a different or wrong decision; or if such facts are either deliberately hidden from the court, ‘judgement was obtained by fraud’.