THE CASE OF RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ANOR V. THE GOVERNMENT OF RIVERS STATE & 9 ORS: SUPREME COURT’S ALARMING DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE

Abstract

The unfolding political turmoil in Rivers State, following the defection of
Martin Amaewhule and 24 other lawmakers from the Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), has precipitated a
constitutional crisis. The fundamental question remains whether these
defected lawmakers are entitled to retain their seats or if, pursuant to
constitutional positions and established legal precedents, they forfeited their
mandates. The  Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement, which effectively
conferred legitimacy upon the defectors by directing the Governor to represent
the 2025 budget to them, has left many Nigerians bewildered, given
the clear-cut constitutional position on defection. This article seeks to analyse
the rationale behind the Supreme Court's decision, which is away from its
previous position on the matter of defection. A doctrinal research approach
was adopted, which placed much reliance on judicial precedents. The Paper
found that the Supreme Court’s recent departure from its earlier position on
defection1has created two different legal positions on defection.