Rivers Assembly Crisis: Lawyer Explains Why Court Bare CBN From Allocating funds to Rivers govt
As reactions continues trailing the court judgment in Rivers State which barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from allocating funds to the state government, a counsel to the Rivers State authentic lawmakers, James Onoja, SAN has commended the court for what he calls a landmark judgment.
Onoja in a chat with journalists said’ “One must commend the court for the time and industry put in this judgment, in spite of all the sentiments, in spite of all the intimidations, in spite of all the volley of voices challenging whether the court should go ahead or not, the court delivered its judgment.
“This is a judgment that touches on the constitutional powers of the court and on the extant provisions of the constitution.
“The issues are very clear, let us explain it in a very clear terms; sections 120, 121, 122 and 123 of the constitution clearly stipulated what should be done before the state can spend money, state expenditure.
“And it is clear there that no money shall be appropriated without an appropriation bill being passed by the House of Assembly.
“It is very clear from the judgment of Omotosho which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal that the budget was not properly passed and in a situation like that, if it is not passed within six months, a state is not supposed to collect revenue from the consolidated funds.
He further explained: “That is the issue of law here, that is the extant provisions of the law and that is what the court has confirmed that the Rivers State government has not complied with the requirements of the constitution on appropriation of bills for expenditures and all the things that they need to do in the state government. It is a very clear judgment.
“And then also looking at all the other judgments that has been passed in respect of Rivers State government, it is clear from this judgment which also relies on the judgment of the Court of Appeal that the state government is in violation of the extant provisions of the constitution relating to expenditure and passing of the bill for expenditure.
A further look into the case clearly showed that there’s no basis for comparing what happened during the reign of Governor Bola Tinubu.
Tinubu had created extra local governments and the then President Olusegun Obasanjo unilaterally stop tĥè release of LG funds to the state insisting that he reverts to the constitutionally recognised LGAs.
Lagos state approached the courts anð and the court held that President Obasanjo has no right to stop LGA allocations.
In the case of Rivers State, the governor has been spending public funds without an Appropriation Act for 11 months.
APC challenged the State government thàt same was unconstitutional and the court agreed that it was unconstitutional to spend without appropriation. The State government was ordered to go and do the right thing by presenting the budget before the proper assembly, pending which the Governor is restrained from further expenditure until he obeys.
Doing the right thing simply means you have to go back to the State Assembly to seek approval or you shut down the government.
Its worthy to notè thàt this same Governor like President Obasanjo unilaterally seized 21 LGAs monthly allocation for five months and has stopped paying state assembly service còmmission staff and the 27 members and their aides for 12 months, since the crisis started.
Judgment is the law in a democratic society. The 27 Member Assembly is authentic until the Federal High Court and court of appeal judgments are set aside by the supreme Court.
