Confusion in court as 2 lawyers appear in suit seeking Rivers expenditure shutdown

There was confusion in a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, as two counsel announced appearance for Rivers House of Assembly in a suit seeking an order shutting down all expenditures of the state government.

By Taiye Agbaje

There was confusion in a Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, as two counsel announced appearance for Rivers House of Assembly in a suit seeking an order shutting down all expenditures of the state government.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Rivers assembly, led by Martin Amaewhule, had filed the suit before Justice Emeka Nwite to restrain Gov. Siminalay Fubara of Rivers from having access to the state’s funds until he re-presents the appropriation law for the 2024 financial year before the house.

In the originating summons dated July 14 but filed July 15 by their lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, the Rivers State House of Assembly and Right Honourable Martin Amaewhule are 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

They, however, sued the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Zenith Bank Plc, Access Bank Plc, Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), Governor of Rivers, Fubara; and Accountant-General (AG) of Rivers as 1st to 6th defendants respectively.

Others include Rivers Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC); Chief Judge (CJ) of Rivers, Hon. Justice S.C. Amadi; Chairman of RSIEC, Hon. Justice Adolphus Enebeli (rtd.) and Government of Rivers State as 7th to 10th defendants respectively.

The plaintiffs sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the CBN, Zenith and Access Banks, including the AGF, from honouring any request or financial instruction issued by Fubara for revenue of Rivers State or Rivers State Government in their custody for the benefit of Rivers State or Rivers State Government.

NAN reports that Justice Nwite had, on July 17, refused to grant the plaintiffs’ ex-parte motion moved by Sebastien Hon, SAN, for the suspension of the state’s expenditures pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The judge, instead, ordered the plaintiffs to put all the defendants in the suit on notice and adjourned until Aug. 7 (today) for hearing.

However, when the matter was called on Wednesday and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr Hon, announced his appearance, another lawyer, Sammie Soniari, SAN, stood up to also announce his representation for the 1st plaintiff (Rivers assembly).

Soniari said pursuant to a notice of change of counsel filed on Aug. 5, he was in court to represent the house of assembly and also to appear for the applicant (RT Honourable Victor Oko Jumbo) seeking to be joined as co-plaintiff pursuant to the motion filed on Aug. 6.

He said another motion on notice was filed on Aug. 6, seeking for an order striking out the name of the assembly from the originating summons.

NAN observes that in the three motions filed, Soniari argued that an originating summons was filed on House of Assembly’s behalf without any authorisation.

“Take notice that the 1st plaintiff herein has changed their Counsel, J. B. Daudu, SAN of J. B. Daudu & Co., and now briefed S. A. Somiari, SAN, MCIArb (UK) of Sammie Somiari & Associates for the purposes of legal representation in this suit,” the notice of change of counsel read.

Also in the motion seeking for an order joining Jumbo in the case, Somiari argued that Amaewhule filed the suit without the leave and authority of the assembly.

The lawyer submitted that Jumbo is the incumbent speaker of the 10th Rivers assembly and the statutory head of the arm of government.

He said he was elected on May 8 following the resignation of the former Speaker, Edison Ehie.

Somiari said on Dec. 11, 2023, Amaewhule, who was elected to represent his constituency at the Rivers assembly on the platform of the PDP,  publicly announced his defection to the APC, without any lawful justification, alongside several former members of the house.

He said “following the said unconstitutional cross-carpeting” of Amaewhule and others, their legislative seats were declared vacant on Dec. 13, 2023 by the former speaker, “thereby leading to the cessation of their membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.”

“The 2nd plaintiff, who is no longer the Speaker of the House of Assembly, cannot institute an action in that capacity,” he said, among other grounds.

Another lawyer, Collins Dike, equally announced his appearance for Obio/Akor Local Government Council of Rivers as party seeking to be joined as 11th defendant in the matter.

When Hon stood up to make his submission on the issue of change of counsel, Soniari objected, urging the court to direct Hon to file a formal application if he had contrary view.

“If he has any query on the motion for change of counsel, he can put it in writing in accordance with Section 6(5)(c),” he said.

But Hon insisted that based on the Supreme Court decision in Modu Sheriff Vs. PDP, the court could take his argument orally without filing a counter affidavit, citing Section 36(1) of the constitution.

“We are here and representing a faction (of the house of assembly) that is recognised by law,” he said.

Dagogo Iboroma, SAN, who appeared for Gov. Fubara, argued that Hon could not have been heard when there were motions for joinder.

Iboroma argued that Order 9(16) of the Federal High Court Rules prescribed that issues of joinder had to be settled before the court proceed in the matter.

The CBN’s lawyer, S.T. Ologunorisa, SAN, also disagreed with Hon on his submission.

Ologunorisa said the issue of the plaintiffs and counsel in the case must be decided first so that he would know who he is responding to.

Turudu Ede, SAN, who appeared for Rivers AG (6th defendant), aligned himself with the Ologunorisa’s submission.

“We need to know who brought us to court first. That has to be sorted out first in this kind of situation because we have avalanche of papers to deal with,” he said.

Isaac  Ita, who said he appeared in protest on behalf of the 10th defendant (Rivers State Government), argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter being a vacation court.

Citing Order 46(5) of the Federal High Court Rules, he said besides that the matter was not file during vacation, there was no urgency that would have warranted hearing the suit during the vacation.

But Justice Nwite informed that he was directed by the Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, to hear the matter as a vacation judge.

“My Learner CJ gave me the order to continue this matter during vacation

“Can I show you the authority given to me by my Learner CJ to continue this matter as vacation judge?” he asked.

Hon, therefore, argued that the chief judge has the administrative power pursuant to the Federal High Court Act to give the directive.

The judge said looking at the contention of parties, there were some issues that needed to be resolved before proceeding.

Hon then sought for a 10-minute standdown to allow him consult with his team of lawyers and the application was granted.

After the court reconvened, Hon applied for an adjournment to enable him respond to all the motions filed.

The lawyer also applied for an abridgment of time within which parties could file and respond to processes in the suit.

Justice Nwite, who adjourned the matter until Aug. 30 for hearing the motions, ordered parties to file and respond to processes within seven days of receipt of court documents.(NAN)