Rivers Revenue Allocation: Appeal Court Ruling Upholds Federalism – Falana

Human rights lawyer Femi Falana commends the Appeal Court judgment on Rivers State revenue allocation, describing it as a victory for the principles of federalism.

Femi Falana, a human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has praised the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn orders that had prevented the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation from disbursing funds to the Rivers State government.

Falana, appearing as a guest on Channels Television’s “Politics Today” last Friday, stated that the ruling and an earlier judgment by the same court affirming the recent local government elections in Rivers State are consistent with Nigeria’s constitutional principles of federalism.

The Court of Appeal’s decisions, both affirming the Rivers State Electoral Commission-conducted local government election and overturning the ruling to seize Rivers State’s statutory allocation, align with federalism principles outlined in the Constitution of Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal states that including federal agencies or officers in a case related to revenue, local government elections, or the internal affairs of a state does not give jurisdiction to the Federal High Court.

READ ALSO: Appeal Court Overturns Order Blocking Release of Funds to Rivers State

Falana stated, “I am confident that the Court of Appeal’s two decisions will significantly strengthen the fundamental principles of federalism in this country.”

The SAN argued that the cases in question should be addressed by the State High Court rather than the Federal High Court.

In the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Friday regarding Rivers State revenue allocation, a three-member panel led by Justice Hamman Barka concluded that the issue did not fall within the court’s jurisdiction concerning state revenue.

In approving the appeal from the Rivers State government, the appellate court nullified all orders previously made by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. The court declared that it was unconstitutional for her to issue directives preventing the Rivers State government from accessing funds owed to them from their consolidated revenue fund.

The appellate court determined that the lower court exceeded its authority and lacked jurisdiction to consider the case.