Drama as Two Lawyers Appear in Court Seeking Rivers Expenditure Shutdown

There was confusion in a Federal High Court in Abu­ja, on Wednesday, as two counsels announced appear­ance for the Rivers House of Assembly in a suit seeking an order shutting down all expenditures of the state government.

The Rivers Assembly, led by Martin Amaewhule, had filed the suit before Justice Emeka Nwite to restrain Gov. Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers from having access to the state’s funds until he re-presents the appropria­tion law for the 2024 financial year before the House.

In the originating sum­mons dated July 14 but filed July 15 by their lead coun­sel, Joseph Daudu (SAN), the Rivers State House of Assembly and Martin Amaewhule are 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

They, however, sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Zenith Bank Plc, Access Bank Plc, Accoun­tant-General of the Feder­ation (AGF), governor of Rivers, Fubara; and Accoun­tant-General (AG) of Rivers as 1st to 6th defendants, re­spectively.

Others include Rivers In­dependent Electoral Com­mission (RSIEC); Chief Judge (CJ) of Rivers, Hon. Justice S.C. Amadi; Chair­man of RSIEC, Hon. Justice Adolphus Enebeli (rtd.) and government of Rivers State as 7th to 10th defendants, re­spectively.

The plaintiffs sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the CBN, Zenith and Access Banks, including the AGF, from honouring any request or financial instruction is­sued by Fubara for revenue of Rivers State or Rivers State government in their custody for the benefit of Rivers State or Rivers State government.

Justice Nwite had, on July 17, refused to grant the plain­tiffs’ ex-parte motion moved by Sebastien Hon (SAN), for the suspension of the state’s expenditures pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The judge, instead, or­dered the plaintiffs to put all the defendants in the suit on notice and adjourned until Aug. 7 for hearing.

However, when the mat­ter was called on Wednes­day and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs’ counsel, Hon announced his appearance, another lawyer, Sammie So­niari (SAN), stood up to also announce his representation for the 1st plaintiff (Rivers Assembly).

Soniari said pursuant to a notice of change of coun­sel filed on Aug. 5, he was in court to represent the House of Assembly and also to appear for the applicant (Hon­ourable Victor Oko-Jum­bo) seeking to be joined as co-plaintiff pursuant to the motion filed on Aug. 6. ­

He said another motion on notice was filed on Aug. 6, seeking an order striking out the name of the Assem­bly from the originating summons.

In the three motions filed, Soniari argued that an orig­inating summons was filed on the House of Assembly’s behalf without any authori­sation.

“Take notice that the 1st plaintiff herein has changed their counsel, J. B. Daudu, SAN of J. B. Daudu & Co., and now briefed S. A. Somi­ari, SAN, MCIArb (UK) of Sammie Somiari & Associ­ates for the purposes of legal representation in this suit,” the notice of change of coun­sel reads.

Also in the motion seeking an order joining Oko-Jumbo in the case, Somiari argued that Amaewhule filed the suit without the leave and authority of the Assembly.

The lawyer submitted that Oko-Jumbo is the in­cumbent speaker of the 10th Rivers Assembly and the statutory head of the arm of government.

He said he was elected on May 8 following the resigna­tion of the former Speaker, Edison Ehie.

Somiari said on Dec. 11, 2023, Amaewhule, who was elected to represent his con­stituency at the Rivers As­sembly on the platform of the PDP, publicly announced his defection to the APC, without any lawful justifi­cation, alongside several for­mer members of the House.

He said, “Following the said unconstitutional cross-carpeting” of Amae­whule and others, their leg­islative seats were declared vacant on Dec. 13, 2023 by the former speaker, “there­by leading to the cessation of their membership of the Rivers State House of As­sembly.

“The 2nd plaintiff, who is no longer the Speaker of the House of Assembly, cannot institute an action in that ca­pacity,” he said, among other grounds.

Another lawyer, Collins Dike, equally announced his appearance for Obio/Akor Local Government Council of Rivers as party seeking to be joined as the 11th defen­dant in the matter.

When Hon stood up to make his submission on the issue of change of counsel, Soniari objected, urging the court to direct Hon to file a formal application if he had a contrary view.

“If he has any query on the motion for change of counsel, he can put it in writing in accordance with Section 6(5)(c),” he said.

But Hon insisted that based on the Supreme Court decision in Modu Sheriff Vs. PDP, the court could take his argument orally without fil­ing a counter affidavit, citing Section 36(1) of the constitu­tion.

“We are here and rep­resenting a faction (of the House of Assembly) that is recognised by law,” he said.

Dagogo Iboroma (SAN), who appeared for Gov. Fuba­ra, argued that Hon could not have been heard when there were motions for join­der.

Iboroma argued that Or­der 9(16) of the Federal High Court Rules prescribed that issues of joinder had to be settled before the court pro­ceeded in the matter.

The CBN’s lawyer, S.T. Ologunorisa (SAN), also disagreed with Hon on his submission.

Ologunorisa said the issue of the plaintiffs and counsel in the case must be decided first so that he would know who he is responding to.

Turudu Ede (SAN), who appeared for Rivers AG (6th defendant), aligned himself with Ologunorisa’s submis­sion.

“We need to know who brought us to court first. That has to be sorted out first in this kind of situation because we have avalanche of papers to deal with,” he said.

Isaac Ita, who said he ap­peared in protest on behalf of the 10th defendant (Rivers State government), argued that the court had no juris­diction to hear the matter being a vacation court.

Citing Order 46(5) of the Federal High Court Rules, he said besides that the matter was not filed during vaca­tion there was no urgency that would have warranted hearing the suit during the vacation.

But Justice Nwite in­formed that he was directed by the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, to hear the mat­ter as a vacation judge.

“My learned CJ gave me the order to continue this matter during vacation.

“Can I show you the au­thority given to me by my learned CJ to continue this matter as vacation judge?” he asked.

Hon, therefore, argued that the chief judge has the administrative power pur­suant to the Federal High Court Act to give the direc­tive.

The judge said looking at the contention of parties, there were some issues that needed to be resolved before proceeding.

Hon then sought a 10-min­ute stand-down to allow him to consult with his team of lawyers and the application was granted.

After the court recon­vened, Hon applied for an adjournment to enable him respond to all the motions filed.

The lawyer also applied for an abridgement of time within which parties could file and respond to processes in the suit.

Justice Nwite, who ad­journed the matter until Aug. 30 for hearing the mo­tions, ordered parties to file and respond to processes within seven days of receipt of court documents.