I don’t want to be remembered for my many fights — Obaseki

By deborah Musa

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mohammed Ndarani, has said the recent judgment by the Federal High Court in Abuja, halting further allocation releases to Rivers State, highlights that the state has been “living on borrowed time” financially.

Ndarani made this statement on Thursday in Abuja following the judgment delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in response to a suit filed by the Rivers House of Assembly and Martins Amaewhule.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024, sought to restrain the Central Bank of Nigeria from disbursing funds to the state—a request granted by the court.

The SAN noted that the judgment, affirming that a state cannot function without a properly constituted House of Assembly, aligns with constitutional provisions and reinforces the rule of law.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara had earlier presented an N800 billion appropriation bill for 2024 to only four out of 31 members of the state’s House of Assembly, a move the Court of Appeal described as a gross constitutional violation.

“For those who understand constitutional democracy, Justice Abdulmalik’s ruling should not be surprising,” Ndarani said.

“Rivers State, led by Governor Fubara, has been living on borrowed time regarding state allocations,” he added.

He emphasised that Nigeria’s constitutional democracy mandates adherence to the rule of law, with a properly constituted legislature essential for checks and balances.

He further argued, “A governor has no legal right to spend public funds without legislative appropriation. Such an act would be unconstitutional under Section 120 and could qualify as gross misconduct, possibly leading to impeachment under Section 188 of the Constitution.”

Ndarani also noted that unauthorised spending could expose a governor to allegations of misappropriation, as per Section 308 of the Criminal Code, while the Public Procurement Law limits unappropriated expenditures to emergency cases under Section 121 of the 1999 Constitution.

He stressed that the House of Assembly’s oversight role ensures accountability, curbs misuse of funds, and directs public expenditure towards the state’s benefit.

Without it, he argued, the executive branch risks undermining democratic principles, the rule of law, and the constitutional separation of powers.

The senior lawyer concluded by citing sections 120(2)–(4) of the Constitution, which require legislative authorisation for withdrawals from state funds, asserting that any breach represents a critical failure in governance.