A Federal High Court has rejected a motion seeking to restrain the National Assembly from further engaging in legislative activities concerning Rivers State, including approving budgets and appointments, under the current Sole Administrator.Justice James Omotosho, in his ruling, determined that the court could not grant the relief sought because the primary action the applicants intended to prevent had already been completed by the time the motion was heard. This decision allows the National Assembly’s previous approvals for Rivers State to stand.
The motion was filed by a group of Rivers State indigenes and the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation, who had challenged the legality of the state of emergency declared in Rivers State and the subsequent appointment of a Sole Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (Rtd). Their application for an interlocutory injunction aimed to halt the National Assembly from approving the state’s budget and appointments made by the Administrator, pending the determination of their substantive suit.
However, Justice Omotosho noted that the Senate had already passed the Rivers State 2025 budget, submitted by the Administrator, on June 25. He emphasized that since the act sought to be restrained was a “completed one,” the motion for an injunction was no longer applicable and therefore dismissed it. This procedural ruling highlights the legal principle that courts generally do not issue injunctions against actions that have already occurred.
The plaintiffs had argued that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the subsequent legislative approvals were unconstitutional, particularly challenging the use of a voice vote by the National Assembly instead of the required two-thirds majority for such declarations. They contended that these actions impinged on their rights to be governed by an elected administration and warned of potential pandemonium in the state if the National Assembly continued its legislative interference.
Despite the dismissal of this specific motion, some of the broader issues raised by the plaintiffs are still encapsulated within the substantive suit. Justice Omotosho indicated that these concerns would be more appropriately addressed when the main case is heard. The court has adjourned the substantive suit until October 20, where the fundamental legality of the state of emergency and its attendant consequences for Rivers State’s governance will be thoroughly examined.
