A heated legal debate has erupted over the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State, with a key lawmaker, Solomon Bob, challenging the interpretation offered by renowned human rights lawyer, Femi Falana.
Bob, who represents the Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, issued a strongly worded statement on the 15th of February, 2025, calling Falana’s take on the judgment “misleading.”
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s decision on the 10th of January, 2025, which dismissed an appeal by Governor Siminilayi Fubara against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
That appellate decision had upheld an earlier ruling by Justice Joseph Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023.
Bob elaborated that Justice Omotosho’s judgment, delivered on the 22nd of January , 2024, expressly barred Governor Fubara from making any “request, presentation, or nomination” before the Rivers State House of Assembly except under the leadership of Speaker Martin Amaewhule.
However, Falana had argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling was limited to the 2024 Appropriation Law and was therefore “merely academic.”
Bob firmly disagreed, asserting that the judgment had far-reaching implications beyond just the 2024 budget, extending to all future legislative processes, including the 2025 budget and any other official requests or nominations.
“However, the ink on the Supreme Court’s dismissal had hardly dried up when Mr. Femi Falana SAN appeared on a television programme to proffer yet another misleading interpretation,” Bob stated.
He pointed out that the reliefs granted by the Federal High Court—subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal—legally upheld the status of the 27 legislators in the Rivers State House of Assembly.
READ ALSO: Falana Blames Police for Stampede Deaths, Demands Compensation for Victims
Citing Section 272(3) of the Constitution, Bob stressed that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over questions regarding vacancies in a legislative house.
He further maintained that Justice Omotosho’s judgment remained the sole valid judicial pronouncement on the status of the 27 lawmakers, dismissing Falana’s position as legally untenable.
According to Bob, Falana’s claim that the lawmakers had forfeited their seats was “outrageous and lacked legal basis.” He concluded by countering Falana’s reliance on Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing that it is “not self-executory.”