Dr Farah Dagogo, former member House of Representatives and one time member of the Rivers State House of Assembly, as well as a governorship aspirant in the 2023 . In this interview, by GODWIN OKONKWO, he gives a breakdown of the recent Supreme Court judgment on Rivers political crisis, steps that the governor and House of Assembly need to take for lasting peace. Excepts:
What is your take on the Supreme Court judgment that invalidated the Rivers State Local Government election?
The great Malcolm once said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Also, Magie Kuhn encouraged us to speak the truth even if our voices shake! Yes, it is a very sensitive question, but when we don’t allow emotions becloud our reasoning, we will come to terms that the Supreme Court of Nigeria acted within its constitutional mandate in nullifying the October 5, 2024, Local Government Elections in Rivers State. This might be an unpopular view, depending on the perspectives, expectations and desires of some for the pendulum to swing otherwise. Nevertheless, the Court’s decision was based on facts and the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission’s (RSIEC) failure to comply with those mandatory legal requirements, helped in rendering the election invalid. There was the violation of Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022 wherein the Supreme Court identified that RSIEC conducted the elections without adhering to Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022. Specifically, the court said RSIEC did not issue the mandatory 90-day notice before the election date, a prerequisite designed to ensure transparency and adequate preparation for all stakeholders. That was why in delivering the lead judgement, the key point emphasized by Justice Jamilu Tukur, was the clear absence of evidence by RSIEC showing compliance with Section 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (now 2022) before conducting the elections and that, in their estimation, rendered the process invalid.
There was also the order by the Federal High Court in Abuja that had issued an order on September 30, 2024, restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from releasing the voter register to RSIEC. Additionally, the court barred security agencies from providing support for the elections due to RSIEC’s non-compliance with electoral laws. RSIEC willfully disobeyed these orders and proceeded with the elections. Of course, the court frowns at these clear disobedience to judicial directives that undermine the rule of law from their perspective. When you dutifully read the ruling, you will observe where the court emphasized the necessity for electoral bodies to adhere strictly to legal provisions governing elections. It equally noted that RSIEC’s actions, in bypassing essential legal steps, compromised the legitimacy of the electoral process.
There are several decided cases buttressing the court’s position. In the All Progressives Congress v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2020): the Supreme Court nullified elections conducted without adherence to the statutory notice period, reinforcing the principle that electoral bodies must comply with all legal requirements to ensure valid elections. Also, in Action Congress v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 220: The Court held that failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, such as voter register updates and proper notices, could invalidate an election. In a nutshell, the apex court ruling on this subject matter was a rightful enforcement of electoral laws, ensuring that statutory requirements are met to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. That decision underscores the Judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional order and the rule of law in Nigeria’s democratic processes.
You have responded with legal authority, interpreting with decided cases as to the reason for the ruling…
Bryant McGill said painful truth is better than a pleasant lie. That same sentiment had been expressed by Thomas Jefferson who said honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. In your question you acknowledged it, I am speaking from an unbiased angle. I am strictly and foremost for Rivers State and what will better and benefit its lots. My allegiance is not to any individual but to Rivers State and the generality of its people. As Glennon Doyle rightly said, ‘Every truth is a kindness even if it makes others uncomfortable. Every untruth is an unkindness, even if it makes others comfortable’, for those who wish to deliberately misconstrue my position, the passage of time will open their eyes and expose them to the truth I am saying. I am always on the side of Justice.
Can the Supreme Court and the Federal Government justify the suspension of allocations to Rivers State as contained in the February 28, 2025 judgment?
The principle that a smaller panel of judges cannot overrule a larger panel within the same court is fundamental to maintaining judicial consistency and stability. In the context of the Nigerian Supreme Court, this doctrine ensures that legal precedents are respected unless reconsidered by an equal or larger bench. In Nigeria, the doctrine of stare decisive mandates that decisions of higher courts bind lower courts, and courts of equal standing should follow established precedents. Specifically, a smaller panel, such as a five-justice bench, should not overrule the decision of a larger panel, like a seven-justice bench. This hierarchy preserves the integrity and predictability of the legal system. For instance, in Sodeinde Bros. Ltd v. ACB Ltd, the Supreme Court emphasized that a five-person panel cannot overrule or depart from the decision of a panel of equal or larger number. The recent events in Rivers State have brought this principle into sharp focus. The crisis began when 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly allegedly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Under Nigerian law, specifically the 1999 Constitution (as amended) lawmakers are expected to vacate their seats upon defection unless their original party is factionalized. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting the claim that these lawmakers had defected, thereby rejecting the assertio that they had lost their seats. A five-justice panel of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of defection by the 27 lawmakers, effectively restoring their positions in the House. This decision raises concerns about adherence to judicial hierarchy, as it appears to conflict with the established precedent that a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger one. The ruling also ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State until the budget was passed by the reinstated lawmakers, a move that has been criticised as punitive towards the state’s populace.
This brings to bare analysis of Judicial Authority and Case Law. The Supreme Court’s decision to have a five-justice panel address an issue previously settled by a seven-justice panel contradicts the established judicial practice of panel hierarchy and overruling precedents. Such actions can undermine the consistency and reliability of legal precedents. As noted in legal analyses, the present panel size weakens the institutional voice of the Supreme Court and is potentially harmful to its integrity.
How?
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulates that lawmakers who defect from their political parties without justifiable reasons, such as a division within the party, must vacate their seats. In this case, the Supreme Court found no evidence of defection, thereby allowing the lawmakers to retain their positions. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate but raises questions about the court’s consistency in applying these provisions. I am giving all these backgrounds so you have an idea of how the law works or operates. To your question on withholding of federal allocations to the state, the Supreme Court’s directive to withhold federal allocations to Rivers State introduces a complex constitutional issue. While the court aims to enforce legislative compliance, such financial sanctions could be seen as overreach, potentially violating the principles of federalism and the financial autonomy of state governments. To summarise [AO1] it, the Supreme Court’s handling of the Rivers State legislative crisis highlights critical issues concerning judicial hierarchy, adherence to constitutional provisions, and the balance of powers within Nigeria’s federal structure. Departing from established precedents without convening an appropriate panel size undermines the judiciary’s credibility and the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’. Moreover, punitive measures affecting state finances may set a concerning precedent for federal-state relations. It is imperative for the judiciary to uphold its foundational principles to maintain public trust and ensure the rule of law.
Another is Financial Autonomy of States. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the financial autonomy of states, ensuring they receive federal allocations without undue interference. While the Constitution provides for the distribution of public revenue, it does not explicitly grant the judiciary the power to withhold funds as a punitive measure. In Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.764) 542, the Supreme Court affirmed the principles of federalism and the financial autonomy of states. The practical advantage of this is it upholds financial autonomy prevents the misuse of fiscal control as a political tool, ensuring that state functions and public services remain uninterrupted. There are also legislative safeguards that address defections since that is the progenitor of the whole crises.
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) addresses the issue of political defections. Section 68(1)(g) stipulates that a member of the legislative house shall vacate their seat if they become a member of another political party before the expiration of their term, except if the change is due to a division in their previous party. In Abe v. Unilorin (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 1, the Supreme Court held that such defections without valid justification leads to the forfeiture of legislative seats. As it relates to practical advantage, strict enforcement of anti-defection laws ensures political stability and respect for the electorate’s mandate, discouraging opportunistic party switching. There is also Judicial Accountability that ensures impartiality. The independence and impartiality of the judiciary are cornerstones of democracy.
Are you suggesting that there are chances of appealing the Supreme Court’s ruling on Rivers State allocation?
In Nigeria, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. As such, its decisions are final and binding under Section 235 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), which states: “Without prejudice to the powers of the President or Governor with respect to the prerogative of mercy, no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.” This means that ordinarily, there is no appeal from a Supreme Court decision. However, there are limited options for challenging such a decision. One of such is an Application for Review Under Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules. This rule allows the Supreme Court to review its own decision in exceptional circumstances. In the case of l Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, the court held that it will only review its judgment in cases of; a clerical mistakes or accidental slips, fraud or misrepresentation and the absence of jurisdiction. In Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it has no power to sit on appeal over its own decisions except in very rare circumstances. Those circumstances include; new evidence or a fundamental jurisdictional error, a motion for review can be filed, Constitutional Amendment, the National Assembly can enact a law to reverse the effects of the judgment, provided it does not contradict the Constitution. In Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt.833) 1, the court held that where legislation is enacted after a judicial decision, the new law can alter the legal position.
READ ALSO: I remain committed to APC — Ahmad Lawan dismisses defection rumours
and then