The recent Federal High Court judgment restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from disbursing federal allocations to Rivers State is causing major political and legal tensions. This decision, issued by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, points to constitutional violations allegedly committed by Governor Siminalayi Fubara. Her ruling states that the 2024 budget presented by Fubara to a four-member faction of the state House of Assembly violates constitutional mandates, as it wasn’t presented to the officially recognized Amaewhule-led Assembly. This has prompted the Rivers State Government to appeal the ruling, asserting that they anticipated the judgment and remain confident it will be overturned.
Fubara argues that the trial proceedings were biased, particularly noting refusals by the judge to allow the addition of council chairmen as plaintiffs and denials to change legal representation for the state. The judge’s decision includes barring the CBN and other financial institutions from releasing funds to Rivers State, challenging the legality of the budget approval process led by the four-member assembly.
The ruling has sparked diverse reactions, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar criticizing the judgment as part of a broader erosion of public trust in the judiciary. He questioned the judiciary’s motivations, warning that its actions could destabilize Rivers, a state with significant oil assets. Meanwhile, legal experts and public officials remain divided, with some emphasizing judicial overreach and others condemning Fubara’s alleged circumvention of established legislative processes.
Public reactions are mixed as well. Supporters of Wike, led by Tony Okocha, have celebrated the ruling, while members of civil society and opposition lawmakers have voiced concerns about the judiciary’s integrity and the implications for governance. Some legal experts argue that cutting off funds could affect civil servants and infrastructure, while others stress adherence to due process as paramount.
The ruling raises questions about the boundaries of executive authority and judicial involvement in state governance. With Rivers’ allocations halted, the situation now hinges on the pending appeal, which will likely clarify the legal interpretations surrounding legislative approval processes, separation of powers, and budgetary oversight.
