Michael Aondoakaa, a former attorney general of the country, recently spoke with ARISE NEWS and voiced his displeasure that states are still receiving funding from the federal government for caretaker committees, even though a Supreme Court decision had already declared such committees unlawful.
Caretaker committees, he said, were plainly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, casting doubt on the legitimacy of federal government initiatives. Aondoakaa argued that peaceful political negotiation would have been the best course of action in Rivers State.
He brought up the point that parties can select which of two competing rulings from state courts with equal power to adopt, which further confuses things. Legal ambiguity and biassed application of court rulings are common results of the fact that federal and state supreme courts have concurrent authority. He was dissatisfied that the Supreme Court's ruling had resulted in lax enforcement of the law.
Aondoakaa had hoped that the federal government would honour the constitutional judgement and prevent other illegalities by withholding funding from caretaker committees until appropriate elections are held, in accordance with the Supreme Court's verdict. "A political and amicable resolution is the best way Rivers could have been resolved," he stated.
Because the impacted party has the option to accept or reject a decision, it becomes extremely problematic when competing rulings originate from the same state courts with coordinated authority. Actually, that's the case. The supreme courts of the United States and each state have concurrent jurisdiction over appeals. Nobody is better than everyone else.
That is why I refrained from offering any commentary: the case is before the court. It is regrettable that we are not ready to implement the law, as the Supreme Court has declared caretaker committee abinitio to be illegal. "After the Supreme Court made it plain that the caretaker committee is illegal, I thought the federal government should have refrained from aiding in an illegal activity.
Why did the federal government transfer funds associated with caretaker committees to the states if the Supreme Court has ruled that they are unlawful and violate the constitution? Because the federal government can withhold such monies until a proper election is held in light of this ongoing ruling involving the supreme court.