By: Daure David
The recent judgment by Nigeria’s Supreme Court concerning the Rivers State lawmakers has ignited a storm of controversy, with many critics accusing the Court of bias in its decision. The ruling, which upheld the legality of the 27 defected lawmakers who switched from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), has left many questioning the integrity of the country’s apex judiciary body.
Observers and political analysts have raised concerns that the Supreme Court did not consider the moral implications of its ruling. According to some legal experts, the Court’s decision failed to reflect the broader societal impact of allowing lawmakers who defected without due process to continue functioning as legitimate representatives of the state.
The case revolves around the 27 PDP lawmakers from Rivers State, who defected to the APC. While their defection did not formally come before the Court in this case, many argue that it was widely publicized and known to the justices through media coverage. Critics claim that the Supreme Court’s decision disregarded the fact that these lawmakers had violated the legal requirements for such a defection, thus making their actions illegal.
Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the elected governor of Rivers State, rejected the legislative actions of these defected lawmakers. He argued that since they had lost their legal standing as lawmakers due to their illegal defection, the laws they passed—including the state budget—should not be recognized. His stance was supported by many who believe that allowing such illegalities to stand would undermine the rule of law in the state.
In contrast, three other lawmakers, who remained loyal to the PDP, passed a budget that Governor Fubara accepted, citing their legal legitimacy. Supporters of Governor Fubara’s position argue that the Supreme Court should have taken a non-partisan stance in this matter, recognizing the legitimacy of the budget passed by the remaining lawful lawmakers in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the state.
However, the Court’s ruling did not acknowledge these moral considerations, leading many to feel that the decision was politically motivated and unfairly tilted in favor of the APC. Critics argue that the judgment could spark widespread unrest and public dissatisfaction in Rivers State, with the potential to disrupt peace and order.
Moreover, this ruling raises broader concerns about the judicial independence of Nigeria’s Supreme Court. Some believe that the Court has allowed itself to be swayed by political interests, rather than sticking strictly to legal principles. These allegations of bias have left many Nigerians questioning the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.
In a similar vein, the Supreme Court’s recent handling of the Imo State governorship election controversy has also raised eyebrows. In that case, the Court declined to enforce its earlier judgment that Uche Nwosu, a candidate in the 2019 Imo governorship election, should be declared the winner. The Court’s refusal to give effect to its own ruling has been interpreted by some as a tactical decision aimed at preserving political stability and avoiding public unrest.
The public’s growing disillusionment with the judiciary is evident, with many accusing the Supreme Court of selectively applying the law depending on the political circumstances. Some Nigerians are now calling for a review of the Rivers State lawmakers’ case to restore public confidence in the Court and reaffirm its role as an impartial body that serves the interests of justice.
This controversy has highlighted a critical issue—whether the Supreme Court, in its role as the final arbiter, should only make decisions based on strict legal interpretation or whether it should also factor in the moral consequences of its rulings. Legal scholars argue that the judiciary must balance both legal and moral considerations to ensure its decisions promote justice and societal well-being.
The need for the Court to review its judgment on the Rivers State case is becoming increasingly urgent, as public trust in the institution continues to erode. As the controversy simmers, Nigerians will be watching closely to see how the Supreme Court responds to these calls for fairness and impartiality in the dispensation of justice.
