According to the report from the Tribune News, a constitutional lawyer, Prof. Richard Wokocha, clarified that the Court of Appeal's decision aligns with the party's position but did not address the legality of assembly members' decamping or their current status within the assembly.
He emphasized that the Court of Appeal's ruling does not validate the assembly members' decamping or their continued participation.
While these members can still hold meetings, he stated that any decisions made will have no impact unless the Federal High Court rules in favor of their decamping and deems the declaration of their seats as vacant as unconstitutional.
He further clarified that the assembly declares members' statuses, while the court only evaluates the validity of such declarations.
He said, "The Court of Appeal has acted on the position of the party, it has not declared that they are lawful members of the house assembly despite decamping. It did not deal with the issue of decamping and its effect. It simply holds that the High Court of Rivers State presided over by Justice Wali was wrong to handle the case because it has no jurisdiction and ought not to have entertained the matter. It did not go to validate anything, the court of appeal did not say that their decamping was legitimate and that they can proceed as members, notwithstanding the issue of their having decamped.
They can continue to have their meetings but whatever they do it has no effect, unless the Federal High Court on the existing matter decides that their decamping was not inconsistent with the constitution, and that the declaration of their seats as being vacant was wrongly done. Until that is decided they are still not members of the House of Assembly. It is the assembly that declares not the court. The court entertains the question whether the declaration was properly made or otherwise."