The Traffic

Court Declines Bid to Halt National Assembly's Role in Rivers Budget Approval

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a request to stop the National Assembly from approving the 2025 budget of Rivers State, ruling that the action in question had already been completed.

The plaintiffs—led by Oziwe Amba, the king regent of Diobu in Port Harcourt, and several others including the Hope Africa Foundation—sought an interim injunction to restrain the National Assembly from participating in legislative activities related to Rivers State under the current emergency rule. Their demands included halting the approval of the state budget and appointments made under the sole administrator, retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas.

Justice James Omotosho, in his ruling on Friday, held that the court could not reverse an action already concluded. “The main act being challenged—passage of the state’s 2025 budget by the Senate—was completed on 25 June,” the judge said.

In March, President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara and all elected officials for six months. The President then appointed Mr. Ibas as sole administrator. The Senate, stepping in for the suspended State Assembly, subsequently passed the state’s 2025 budget and ratified various appointments.

The plaintiffs, who filed their main suit on 19 June and an application for interlocutory injunction on 24 June, are challenging the legality of both the emergency rule and the administrator’s appointment. They argue that the Senate's involvement lacks constitutional merit, claiming the emergency proclamation was invalid due to the absence of the required two-thirds majority vote as stipulated in Section 305 of the Constitution.

Representing the applicants, lawyer Ambrose Owuru urged the court to nullify the Senate’s actions, while National Assembly counsel Mohammed Galadima countered that the legislative process was constitutional and necessary to maintain governance in the state.

Justice Omotosho, however, emphasized that since the budget had already been passed, issuing a restraining order would serve no practical purpose. He noted that broader constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs would be addressed during the substantive hearing.

The matter has been adjourned to 20 October for further proceedings.

By Haruna Yakubu Haruna