Femi Falana, a human rights lawyer, on Friday, said the judgement of the Court of Appeal setting aside orders restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant General of the Federation (AGF) from releasing funds to the Rivers State government is in line with the tenets of federalism outlined in Nigeria’s Constitution.
Falana who spoke on Channels Television’s Politics Today hailed the judgment, as well as the earlier judgment by the same court that validates the recent Local Government election conducted in the State
“The decision of the Court of Appeal which validated the local government election conducted by the Rivers State Electoral Commission and the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered today which has set aside the decision that the statutory allocation of Rivers State be seized; these two decisions are in line with the tenets of federalism outlined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to him, “The Court of Appeal is saying that the fact that you joined federal agencies or federal officers to a case that has to do with the revenue or local government election, or internal affairs of a state government cannot confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.
READ ALSO:
“I am convinced that both decisions delivered by the Court of Appeal will go a long way to reinforce the basic tenets of federalism in this country,” Falana said.
The senior lawyer insisted that the cases in question were not affairs to be treated by the Federal High Court but by the State High Court.
Recall that the Court of Appeal, Abuja, presided by Justice Hamman Barka on Friday held that the subject matter was not within the jurisdiction of the court relating to the revenue of the state.
While allowing the appeal of the Rivers State government, the appellate court also set aside all the orders made by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, stating that it was unconstitutional for her to make orders restricting Rivers State government from receiving funds due to the state from its consolidated revenue fund.
The appellate court ruled that the lower court overreached itself and didn’t have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
