Prof. Richard Wokocha, a constitutional lawyer, explained to the Tribune News that while the Court of Appeal's ruling supports the party's stance, it does not decide whether or not assembly members' decamping was lawful or how they are currently classified within the assembly.
He made it clear that the decision of the Court of Appeal does not support the assembly members' decision to decamp or remain involved. He did say that these members can still have meetings, but that decisions won't matter unless the Federal High Court upholds their decamping and finds the statement that their seats are vacant unlawful. It was further explained by him that the assembly is the one that declares the status of members, and the court merely assesses whether or not such declarations are genuine.
The Court of Appeal has not determined that they are valid members of the House Assembly despite decamping, he said, acting on the party's position. The problem of decamping and its consequences was not addressed. It only states that Justice Wali's High Court of Rivers State erred in handling the issue, since the court lacked jurisdiction and should not have heard it. The court of appeals did not rule that their decamping was lawful or that they can continue as members regardless of the fact that they decamped, therefore it did not validate anything.
They are free to keep meeting as they like, but nothing will happen until the Federal High Court rules that their decamping was constitutional and that the declaration of their seats as vacant was incorrect, regarding the current situation. They have not been officially elected to the House of Assembly as of this point in time. The legislature, and not the court, makes the declaration. "Was the declaration made properly or not?" is an issue that the court considers.