In a recent development, the Court of Appeal has overturned a restraining order issued by a Port Harcourt Court against Martin Amaewhule and his group of 24 legislators in Rivers State. This judgment has sparked a multitude of reactions, reflecting the diverse political interests at play. To provide clarity on the matter, renowned constitutional lawyer Prof. Richard Wokocha shared his expertise.
According to Prof. Wokocha, the Court of Appeal's judgment did not legitimize the position of Martin Amaewhule and his group as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. Instead, the appellate court focused on the jurisdictional issue, affirming that the High Court, presided over by Justice Charles Wali, lacked the authority to entertain the matter or restrain the appellants from sitting.
Prof. Wokocha emphasized that the judgment did not validate the legislators' defections, and the meetings held by Amaewhule and the 24 others remain uncertain until the Federal High Court decides on the matter. He stressed that it is the assembly, not the court, that declares membership. The Court of Appeal acted based on the jurisdictional issue, not on the legitimacy of the lawmakers as members of the House.
The constitutional lawyer clarified that the court did not address the issue of decamping and its consequences but simply ruled that the High Court of Rivers State, presided over by Justice Wali, was wrong to handle the case due to its lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court did not validate the decamping of the legislators or declare them lawful members of the assembly despite their defections.
In summary, the Court of Appeal's ruling did not provide a clear resolution on the membership status of the defecting lawmakers. The assembly will ultimately determine their membership, and the Federal High Court's decision on the matter is eagerly awaited.