In a fiery response to a Federal High Court ruling restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria from disbursing Rivers State’s monthly allocations, the Rivers State Government has launched an appeal against the judgment. The decision follows a suit involving a controversial 2024 budget, presented by Governor Siminalayi Fubara before a four-member state assembly faction—a move that Justice Joyce Abdulmalik declared a “constitutional affront.”
The judgment has added fresh fuel to a simmering political crisis within the state, marked by Fubara’s recent escape from an impeachment attempt allegedly spearheaded by former Governor and now Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike. Rivers State Commissioner for Information and Communications, Joseph Johnson, expressed confidence in the appeal, pointing to what he termed “glaring pointers” that favour a reversal.
Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling, however, contends that Fubara’s budget actions represent a stark violation of the Nigerian Constitution, underscoring that funds from the Federation Account should not be accessible to the governor without lawful assembly endorsement. The CBN, along with financial institutions Access Bank and Zenith Bank, were ordered to freeze allocations until Fubara re-presents his budget to a properly constituted house—a body which Abdulmalik’s judgment states remains under the control of Wike loyalist Martin Amaewhule, not the current assembly faction allied with Fubara.
The ruling and subsequent appeal mark the latest chapter in a protracted power struggle within the Rivers State legislature and highlight the state’s internal divisions. Analysts suggest that the case has implications reaching beyond Rivers, as similar disputes across Nigeria reveal the deepening entanglement of the judiciary in political feuds. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar voiced concern, criticizing what he described as the “theatre of judicial chaos” threatening Nigeria’s democratic process and calling on the judiciary to uphold its role as an unbiased arbiter.
The evolving case has sparked a cacophony of reactions from legal experts, civil society groups, and senior political figures, with opinions divided on the ruling’s implications for democracy and governance in Rivers. The judgment, lauded by some as a vital reinforcement of the rule of law, has also drawn criticism for alleged bias and judicial “rascality.”
