Confusion as two lawyers contest right to represent Rivers assembly in court

There was confusion in a Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, as two counsels announced an appearance for Rivers House of Assembly in a suit seeking an order to shut down all expenditures of the Rivers State Government.

The Rivers assembly, led by Martin Amaewhule, had filed the suit before Justice Emeka Nwite to restrain Governor Siminalayi 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 14 July but filed on 15 July by their lead counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN, the Rivers assembly and Mr Amaewhule are 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

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

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

Background

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

Gov Fubara [PHOTO CREDIT: Gov Fubara Xhandle]

Justice Nwite had, on 17 July, 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 7 August (today) for a hearing.

Who has right to appear for Rivers assembly?

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

Rivers House of Assembly

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

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

The News Agency of Nigeria observes that in the three motions filed, Mr Somiari argued that an originating summons was filed on Rivers assembly’s behalf without 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 an order joining Mr Oko-Jumbo in the case, Mr Somiari argued that Mr Amaewhule filed the suit without the leave and authority of the assembly.

The lawyer submitted that Mr Oko-Jumbo is the incumbent speaker of the 10th Rivers Assembly and the statutory head of the legislative arm of government.

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

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

Martin Amaewhule. [PHOTO CREDIT]

He said “following the said unconstitutional cross-carpeting” of Mr Amaewhule and others, their legislative seats were declared vacant on 13 December 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 State as the party seeking to be joined as the 11th defendant in the matter.

When Mr Hon stood up to make his submission on the issue of change of counsel, Mr Somiari objected, urging the court to direct Mr Hon to file a formal application if he had a 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 Mr 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 Governor Fubara, argued that Mr Hon could not have been heard when there were motions for joinder.

Mr 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 Central Bank of Nigeria’s lawyer, S.T. Ologunorisa, SAN, also disagreed with Mr Hon on his submission.

Mr 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 Attorney General (6th defendant), aligned himself with Mr 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 an avalanche of papers to deal with,” he said.

Rivers state on map

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 filed 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.

Mr 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.

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

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

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

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