House of Representatives member, Mr. Solomon Bob, has faulted human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, on the status of 27 Rivers state House of Assembly members in the recent verdict of the Supreme Court.

Bob, who represents Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State, noted that Falana’s insistence that they have lost their seats is outrageous. It lacks legal basis.

The lawmaker remarked that he was dismayed by what he termed “Mr. Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public concerning the Rivers crisis.”

He noted that Nigeria’s recent history is regrettably replete with instances of defections across state (and federal) legislatures, wondering why Falana has not been straining at the leash to make the same case in other instances.

He contended that, in his many public appearances on the Rivers crisis, Falana has employed ‘self-serving sophistry’ to justify every illegality and absurdity, including that three members can constitute the legal quorum in a House of as yet 30 members!

Calling on Falana to separate his position towards an individual from his exposition of the law and have the humility to admit that he is not the law, he added that no matter how much legal knowledge he professes, his opinion remains his personal opinion and can not approximate to the law.

He remarked that as Rivers State reels under Fubara’s alleged misrule, and the courts undo his myriad of misdeeds, a lawyer of Falana’s prominence should at least respect their decision, and not mislead the public.

The lawmaker argued that the recent Supreme Court judgement which dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgment of the Court of Appeal 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.

He remarked that the ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Falana appeared on a television programme to proffer another interpretation arguing that the dismissed appeal related only to the 2024 appropriation law and, therefore, merely academic.

Justifying his opposition to Falana’s views, he said: “As the above order shows, Mr. Falana was wrong. He was also downplaying 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 affirm the subsisting membership of the House of Assembly by the 27 legislators,” he said.

“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.

“Justice Omotosho’s judgment (with the affirming appeals) remains the only decision by a court with the requisite jurisdiction to have pronounced on the status of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. Mr. Falana’s insistence that they have lost their seats is outrageous. It lacks legal basis.

“Contrary to his vaunted opinion, section 109(1)(g) of the constitution is not self-executory. And realistically, under a constitutional democracy, no law is. Because every constitutional provision is ultimately subject to judicial interpretation.

To suggest otherwise is to deny the imperative of judicial review.”