The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) has assured Rivers State that it will continue to receive federal allocations while ongoing legal appeals unfold......Read The Full Article>>.....Read The Full Article>>
This announcement comes amid escalating tensions following a Federal High Court ruling that questioned the legitimacy of the state’s 2024 budget and legislative processes.
Bawa Mokwa, Director of Press and Public Relations at the OAGF, reiterated the government’s commitment to upholding legal directives.
Speaking to The PUNCH, Mokwa stated, “We will adhere to court orders. Given that there is a notice of appeal, that notice has superseded the earlier court judgment. As it stands, we are obligated to follow the court’s current directive, meaning Rivers will continue to receive funding.”
The controversy stems from an October 30 ruling by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, which mandated the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold Rivers’ monthly allocations.
The court deemed the 2024 budget, passed by a four-member faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly, unconstitutional. Justice Abdulmalik described the actions of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his allied legislators as a “constitutional aberration” that violated Sections 91 and 96 of the 1999 Constitution.
Additionally, the court nullified all decisions made by the four-member Assembly faction, referencing previous rulings that had already invalidated its legitimacy.
This ruling followed a suit filed by the Martin Amaewhule-led faction of the Assembly, which had suspended state expenditures until the budget was resubmitted to a fully constituted legislature.
In response, the Rivers State Government filed a notice of appeal. Commissioner for Information and Communications Joseph Johnson expressed confidence in overturning the ruling, characterizing it as “unjust” and “destined for reversal.”
The OAGF’s assurance guarantees the continued flow of funds to Rivers State, at least until the Court of Appeal issues a definitive ruling on this matter. This dispute underscores deep divisions within the state’s political landscape, with significant implications for governance and constitutional adherence.
