After reading news reports about the grounds for the ruling of the Court of Appeal on July 4, 2024, which forms the subject of the breaking news reported by The Nigeria Lawyer under the title, “Court of Appeal Nullifies Expulsion Of 25 Rivers State Lawmakers, Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction By High Court” (See: The Nigeria Lawyer; July 4, 2024), I hold the respectful view that the Court of Appeal may be right in this instance in holding that the Rivers State High Court does not have jurisdiction in determining the question whether the seat of a State Assembly member has become vacant. My conclusion, expressed as far back as 2021, has been that there appears to exist an Error of Transposition in Section 272(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and (in my respectful view), this error may only be corrected by a Constitution amendment. Until such a Constitution Amendment, the State High Court may not have jurisdiction in any lawsuit dealing with (1) whether the seat of a member of the House of Assembly of a State has become vacant or (2) whether the tenure of a member of the House of Assembly of a State has expired. Please see my full discussion on the matter; my opinion was written in 2021 under the title, “In Re Federal High Court Versus State High Court: Who Should Correct This Error Of Transposition In The Nigerian Constitution?” By Sylvester Udemezue ( 19 MARCH 2021; BarristerNG). In the said article, I concluded thus:
“The option of constitutional amendment appears to be the most viable option, unless we wait for a live dispute to arise, thus providing the cause of action needed to confer jurisdiction upon a court, which could now deliver a pronouncement to resolve the controversy. One thing cannot be denied: an error exists, which has distorted the intentions of the makers of the Constitution.
Fortunately, while there has been no Constitution Amendment touching on the matter, the “live dispute” I talked about (and anticipated) in 2021 has now come to the Rivers State House of Assembly imbroglio, “thus providing the cause of action needed to confer jurisdiction upon a court [in this instance, the Court of Appeal],” which has today, July 5, 2024, delivered “a pronouncement to resolve the controversy.”.
It’s humbly submitted that it’s now official, by virtue of this pronouncement; unless (a) this July 4, 2024, pronouncement of the Court of Appeal is reversed on further appeal or otherwise set aside, or (b) the anticipated Constitution amendment happens, only the Federal High Court possesses jurisdiction in lawsuits dealing with (1) whether the seat of a member of the House of Assembly of a State has become vacant or (2) whether the tenure of a member of the House of Assembly of a State has expired.
NOTA BENE:
(1). For the avoidance of doubts, it’s respectfully submitted that the 04/July/2024 pronouncement of the Court of Appeal has nothing to do with the MERIT of the raging controversy regarding:
(a). Whether the said 25 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly actually defected on 11 December 11, 2023 — there are media reports suggesting that the embattled 25 Honourables have beat a retreat and are now singing a different tune;
or
(b) Whether the said 25 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, by virtue of their own, acknowledged defection on December 11, 2023, automatically lost their seats in the House and accordingly ceased to be members of the House—recall that apart from the fact that the said defection was covered by the media and evidence of it is everywhere, the leader of the group of 25 later, in a widely-circulated public release, admitted and even justified and bragged about their defection. Further, the embattled 25 Honorables were thereafter reportedly deposed to an affidavit filed at the Federal High Court, acknowledging that they had actually defected on December 11, 2023.
Until these (now controversial) questions are resolved, the Rivers State imbroglio appears far from over, judging by prevailing developments.
It’s finally respectfully submitted that the following appellate Court Judgments are central and critical and might accordingly serve as authoritative guides towards a final and conclusive resolution of the raging brouhaha:
i). DAPIALONG V. DARIYE (SC 39/2007) [2007] NGSC 181 (27 April 2007) (Supreme Court);
ii). A.G. FEDERATION v. ABUBAKAR (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1041); 1 AT 178, the Supreme Court of Nigeria (per Aderemi, JSC at page 178); and
iii). ABEGUNDE V. ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS (2014)LPELR-23683(CA) (pp. 78–79 paras. B)(CA), the Court of Appeal (Per MSHELIA, J.C.A.
(2). Shortly, I shall write an opinion to analyse the practical implications of the directive by the Court of Appeal to parties on maintenance of status quo ante bellum. But before then, I shall write to advise Nigerian lawyers on their role in developing Constitutional democracy and promoting the rule of law and an orderly society.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (udems),
Proctor,
The Reality Ministry of Justice, Nigeria.
(A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group)
08039136749.
therealistministry@gmail.com.
(04 July 2024)
Source: BarristerNG
