SAN FRANCISCO, December 11, 2013, (THEWILL) – A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday nullified the resolution of the National Assembly that gave it powers to take over the functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly, following the crisis rocking the legislature in the state.
The court presided over by Justice Ahmed Ramat Muhammed further ordered the National Assembly to stop performing the legislative functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Ruling on a suit filed by two lawyers, Messrs Tamunotemi Asobari and John Kpakol but argued by Mr Ade Okeaya-Inneh, SAN, Justice Muhammed held that as at the time the National Assembly took over the affairs of the Rivers State House of Assembly, there were no facts that the Assembly was unable to carry out its functions as provided under the constitution.
He also held that by provisions of section 11(4) and (5) of the constitution, the National Assembly could not assume the law making functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly when there were no facts that the Assembly was unable to carry out its functions.
He also declared as unconstitutional and consequently nullified the resolution passed by the Senate mandating the Senate Committee on States and Local Government Areas to investigate the sticky situation between the Rivers State Governor and the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State and the crisis rocking the Rivers State House of Assembly.
UPDATE
The takeover of the legislative functions of the Rivers State House of Assembly by the National Assembly has been declared unconstitutional.
The declaration was made on Wednesday in Abuja by a Federal High Court presided over by Justice Ahmed Ramat Muhammed .
He also stopped the National Assembly from performing the duties of the embattled Assembly.
The judge who was ruling on a suit filed by two lawyers, Messrs Tamunotemi Asobari and John Kpakol, held that when the National Assembly took over the functions of the Rivers Assembly, there were no facts that the Assembly was unable to perform its functions as provided under the constitution.
He therefore nullified the Senate resolution mandating its Committee on States and Local Government Areas to investigate the problem between the Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, and the state Commissioner of Police, Joseph Mbu, as well as the crisis rocking the Rivers State House of Assembly.
According to the judge, by provisions of section 11(4) and (5) of the constitution, the National Assembly could not assume the law making functions of the Rivers Assembly when there were no facts that the Assembly was unable to carry out its functions.
According to the judge, “By the provisions of Section 215(2) and (3) of the constitution as amended, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants do not have the powers to direct the 5th Defendant (Speaker of the House of Representatives) to re-deploy the Rivers State Commissioner of Police or any officer under the command of the Nigeria Police Force.”
He therefore upheld the argument by the plaintiffs that after the July 9 fracas in the Rivers Assembly, the House reconvened under the former Speaker and passed the state’s 2013 budget.
The judge ruled that his decision to believe the claim that the Assembly still conducted some businesses after the purported impeachment of the Assembly’s Speaker which resulted in the fracas, was based on the fact that the defendants failed to specifically denied this claim.
The judge also rejected the defendants’ objection challenging the plaintiffs’ locus to institute the action.
According to the judge, “The defendants raised an objection that the plaintiffs had no locus to institute the suit since they were not in any affected by the action.
“It is possible for any person who is convinced that his right has been infracted to approach the court, any person who is subject to the law should see to it that he is governed by an acceptable law.
“The concept of locus has been broadened , the suit is about interpretation of the constitution, it is my view that the plaintiff has locus to institute this suit.
“The plaintiffs in this suit have a cause of action because if the claims succeed, the court would provide judicial remedy. Objection as to cause of action is dismissed.”
Justice Mohammed thereafter went on to consider the substantive suit as he conceded the fact that the National Assembly had the power to assume law making for state Houses of Assembly but added that the power to do so has caveat.
“If the state House of Assembly meets and is able to transact business of law making, it will not be deemed to be unable to perform its functions, ” he said.
He however noted that the plaintiffs deposed to an affidavit to the effect that notwithstanding the fracas that took place in the Assembly, the Assembly still sat to pass the amended 2013 budget.
“This the defendants have not contradicted and when an affidavit is not contradicted, the court will have no option than to admit such.
“The court has not been shown the provision that empowers the National Assembly to redeploy the police as redeployment is mainly the duty of the executive,” he said.
