Philip Nyam 
A member of the House of Representatives representing Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency of Rivers State, Solomon Bob has disagreed with a renowned lawyer, Femi Falana’s opinion on the recent Supreme Court judgement.
Recall that the apex court had last week dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld a Federal High judgement recognising the pro-Wike lawmaker, Martin Amaewhule as the authentic speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
In a press statement issued in Abuja on Friday, Solomon Bob decried Femi Falana’s declaration on a TV programme that the Supreme Court judgement only addressed the issue of the 2024 budget and not the membership and leadership of the State Assembly.
He said ‘On 10th January 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier upheld the judgment of Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit N0 FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.
“Justice Omotosho’s judgment, which was delivered on 22nd January 2024, touched on the entirety of the issues at the centre 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”
Bob noted that “One of the judgment orders declares that: ‘AN ORDER is hereby made restraining the 11th Defendant (Governor Fubara) from howsoever or in whatsoever manner 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 judgment does not address 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”
According to him, “The ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Mr. Femi Falana SAN appeared on a television programme to proffer yet another misleading interpretation.
“In his presentation, Mr Falana claimed that the dismissed appeal related only to the 2024 appropriation law and, therefore, merely academic.
“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.
“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 a 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.
“I am dismayed by Mr Falana’s consistent penchant for misleading the public with respect to the Rivers crisis.
“Nigeria’s recent history is regrettably replete with instances of defections right across state (and federal) legislatures. Mr. Falana has not been straining at the leash to make the same case in other instances.
“In his many public appearances on the Rivers crisis, he has employed self-serving sophistry and hollow what aboutism to justify every illegality and absurdity, including that 3 members can constitute the legal quorum in a House of as yet 30 members!
“Mr. Falana should separate his animus towards an individual from his exposition of the law and have the humility to admit that he is not the law.
“Because no matter how much legal knowledge he professes, his opinion remains his personal opinion and can not approximate to the law. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said, the law is “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact…”
