Rep. Solomon T. Bob (Abua/Odual and Ahoada East Federal Constituency, Rivers State) has strongly criticized Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Femi Falana over his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s appeal. Bob accused Falana of deliberately misleading the public on the implications of the judgment, particularly regarding the leadership and membership of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
In a press statement, Bob emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision upheld previous rulings by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, which recognized Speaker Martin Amaewhule’s leadership and affirmed the continued membership of the 27 legislators. He insisted that the ruling was not limited to the 2024 budget but extended to all legislative matters, including future budget presentations and nominations by the governor.
“One of the judgment orders clearly states that Governor Fubara is restrained from making any request, presentation, or nomination to the Rivers State House of Assembly except to the House under the leadership of Speaker Martin Amaewhule,” Bob stated.
He dismissed Falana’s claim that the ruling was merely academic and only applied to the 2024 budget, arguing that it had far-reaching legal consequences. “Mr. Falana was wrong. He was also downplaying the dire ramifications of spending without an appropriation law,” he added.
The lawmaker also accused Falana of misrepresenting the status of the 27 lawmakers, insisting that they remain members of the Assembly based on judicial pronouncements. “By reason of Section 272(3) of the Constitution, only the Federal High Court is vested with jurisdiction on any question of vacancy in the seats of a House of Assembly,” he explained.
Bob further questioned Falana’s selective approach to legal advocacy, alleging that he had ignored similar defection cases in other states while amplifying the crisis in Rivers. “In his many public appearances on the Rivers crisis, he has employed self-serving sophistry and hollow whataboutism to justify every illegality and absurdity, including that three members can constitute the legal quorum in a House of as yet 30 members,” he said.
He accused Falana of allowing personal bias to cloud his legal judgment, urged him to separate his personal sentiments from objective legal analysis. “No matter how much legal knowledge he professes, his opinion remains his personal opinion and cannot approximate to the law,” Bob stated.
