The decision of the Appeal Court sitting in Abuja to reserve judgment in the plethora of cases before it emanating from the political crisis in Rivers State has heightened tension in the political firmament of the treasure base of the nation.
Since October 2023 after the foiled impeachment of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, by the state House of Assembly, the state has been on a cliff edge of some sort as the immediate past Governor of the state and incumbent Federal Capital Territory Minister, Nyesom Wike is fighting tooth and nail to unseat Gov. Fubara ,whom he incidentally installed.
The altercation from what is now known from Gov. Fubara’s confession centers on the scramble for the control of the state resources. Apparently the governor’s refusal or unwillingness to allow some privileged persons to dip their hands into the state coffers has led to a gang up of sorts against the governor and by extension the peace and health of the state.
Amidst the crisis, many law suits have been flying in and out of the various courts in the land from both sides of the divide – pro Fubara and pro-Wike and bringing out the dirtiness in the nation’s judiciary with its attendant deprecating odour.
While some of the learned justices who were involved in adjudication in the cases on the Rivers crisis were busy dishing out some infantile decisions, the regulatory body of the bench, the National Judicial Council, NJC, watched hands akimbo until after reasonable damage had been done to the nation’s judicial integrity, before it decided to set up a panel to review the professional conduct of some of the justices.
Interestingly and quite surprising, the panel’s report spared Justice Omotosho, Justice Lifus and Justice Tosho, all of the Abuja judicial division, but descended on Justice Aguma of the Rivers State High Court ,slamming one year ban on him without salary.
Read also: RIVCHPP deepens collaborations for wider healthcare coverage
The clean bill of health given to the trio of Justice Omotosho, Lifu and Tosho, including Joyce Abdulmalik in the various roles they had played in the Rivers crisis is already reverberating in the state, to the effect that many do not have confidence that the Appeal Court would come up with anything radically different from the earlier pronouncements of the forgoing justices.
Many Rivers people are thus waiting with baited breath to see how the Appeal Court would navigate Section 109, sub-section (1) (g) of the 1999 constitution as amended, on the question of defection or how it would interprete perjury with regards to the position of the 27 defected Rivers lawmakers who are now claiming otherwise.
The Rivers crisis has become an acid test for both the bar and the bench. Many of them have abandoned ethics and what the law says and are now pontificating from commonsense just to please some interests.
It is regrettable that the rot in our social fabric has also eaten deep into the judiciary. So now that even gold has suffered some rust, what hope is there for the iron?
The two divides in the Rivers political space
have been kept in suspense which is fuelling the current palpable tension. Will the Appeal Court defuse the tension by the unimpeachable interpretation of Section 109 (1) (g )of our constitution or compound it with unfounded technicalities?
