ALDRAP Seeks Supreme Court Review of Rivers State Political Crisis Verdict

The political turmoil in Rivers State has taken a new turn as the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) has formally requested the Supreme Court of Nigeria to review its February 28, 2025 judgment. This ruling had reinstated 27 members of the State House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, and directed Governor Sim Fubara to re-present the state’s 2025 budget before their faction of the Assembly....CONTINUE READING>>>

Additionally, the Supreme Court had ruled that allocations from the Federation Account to Rivers State would be suspended until the budget was passed as a lawful Appropriation Law by the Amaewhule-led Assembly. This ruling invalidated the previous budget, which had been passed by the rival Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-member faction of the Assembly.

However, ALDRAP, a body of professional legislative lawyers, has raised concerns over the judgment and is seeking a judicial review. In a letter dated March 13, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and signed by its lawyer, Kenneth Amadi, ALDRAP cited the provisions of Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024 as the legal basis for the review request.

Grounds for Review

ALDRAP argues that the five-judge panel that presided over the case should have been expanded to a full panel of seven judges, as is customary in cases of constitutional importance. Furthermore, the association contends that the ruling contradicts previous Supreme Court judgments on similar matters, including the precedent set in Attorney-General of Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (1981).

Key Legal Concerns

The Executive Secretary of ALDRAP, Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, has strongly criticized the judgment for failing to consider key legislative records concerning the defection of the 27 lawmakers. He highlighted that the Supreme Court has previously held that courts must take judicial notice of legislative proceedings, citing the case of Hon. J. I. Ekpenkhio v. Hon. Matthew Egbadon (1962-2001) 1 Legislative Law Reports of Nigeria (LLRN), pages 307 to 336.

According to Jaja, the Hansard of the Rivers State House of Assembly from December 11, 2023, clearly recorded the defection of the 27 lawmakers, including the Speaker, who personally confirmed their switch to another political party. This defection was officially approved through a voice vote and documented as a resolution of the Assembly.

Alleged Judicial Inconsistencies

ALDRAP further criticizes the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 109(1)(g) of the Nigerian Constitution, arguing that the ruling creates a legal loophole that makes it nearly impossible to hold defecting lawmakers accountable. The judgment by Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim suggested that only the offending legislature could declare a defection, which ALDRAP believes is fundamentally flawed.

Jaja emphasized that this interpretation undermines the judiciary’s role in checking legislative misconduct. He argued that allowing lawmakers to judge their own defection contradicts the principle of checks and balances, thereby weakening constitutional enforcement.

The Broader Constitutional Implications

ALDRAP maintains that the judiciary has a constitutional duty to review the actions of the executive and legislative arms of government. In cases of defection, it is the judiciary’s responsibility to determine whether lawmakers have violated constitutional provisions, not the legislature itself. The association asserts that Justice Agim’s ruling effectively allows lawmakers to bypass constitutional restrictions on defection, setting a dangerous precedent for future political disputes.

With these arguments, ALDRAP is urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in order to uphold judicial integrity and constitutional principles.