The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Central Bank of Nigeria should stop federal allocations to Rivers State until the state’s budget is approved by the House of Assembly.

This decision has caused concern among legal experts and politicians, including former lawmaker Farah Dagogo. He believes the ruling raises legal questions, especially regarding judicial hierarchy and the financial autonomy of states.

The crisis in Rivers State began when 27 lawmakers allegedly left the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the All Progressives Congress (APC). Under Nigerian law, lawmakers who defect without a valid reason, such as a division within their party, are supposed to lose their seats. However, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of defection and reinstated the lawmakers.

The ruling also ordered the withholding of federal allocations to the state, a move that some see as excessive. Many legal experts argue that a smaller panel of five justices should not have overturned an earlier decision made by a larger seven-justice panel. This goes against the legal principle that a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger one, which ensures consistency in judicial decisions.

Dagogo suggests that Rivers State can challenge the ruling using the following legal argument.

Judicial Hierarchy and Precedent

• In Nigerian law, a smaller panel of judges should not overrule a decision made by a larger panel.
• There have been past cases where the Supreme Court only changed its decision when a full or larger panel reviewed the case.
• Financial Autonomy of States
• The Nigerian Constitution guarantees states the right to receive federal allocations.
• There is no clear law that allows the judiciary to stop a state’s

To challenge the ruling, Rivers State can take the following steps:

• Request a full panel of the Supreme Court to review the case and possibly overturn the decision.
• Argue that the financial punishment goes against the Constitution, which protects the financial independence of states.
• Highlight past cases where the Supreme Court upheld the principle that only a larger panel can overrule a previous decision.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on Rivers State’s financial allocation has sparked discussions on whether the decision can be overturned. Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority, and its rulings are final. Section 235 of the Constitution states that no appeal can be made against its decisions. However, there are a few legal avenues that may allow for a review under exceptional circumstances.

Under Order 8, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, the court can review its own judgment in cases where there is:

• A clerical error or accidental slip
• Fraud or misrepresentation
• A lack of jurisdiction

In Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (1989) and Ekwunife v. Wayne West Africa Ltd (1989), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while its decisions are final, it can reconsider them under rare circumstances. If the Rivers State Government wishes to challenge the ruling, it must prove significant legal errors, jurisdictional issues, or present new evidence.

The National Assembly has the power to pass laws that can influence the effects of a Supreme Court ruling. In Attorney-General of Lagos State v. Attorney-General of the Federation (2003), the court acknowledged that new legislation can alter the legal framework post-judgment. The Rivers State Government can lobby for laws reinforcing financial autonomy for states.

If the Supreme Court’s ruling violates fundamental human rights, a petition can be submitted to the ECOWAS Court of Justice or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. However, this route is complex and time-consuming.

While challenging a Supreme Court ruling is extremely difficult, a combination of legal, legislative, and human rights actions could influence its impact.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to invalidate the Rivers State Local Government Elections held on October 5, 2024, has drawn mixed reactions. However, the ruling was based on clear legal grounds.

The Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) failed to comply with Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2022, which requires a mandatory 90-day notice before conducting elections. In APC v. INEC (2020) and Action Congress v. INEC (2007), the Supreme Court had ruled that non-compliance with electoral laws renders elections invalid.

A Federal High Court in Abuja had barred INEC from releasing the voter register and prohibited security agencies from supporting the elections. RSIEC ignored these directives, which undermined the rule of law.

The Supreme Court emphasized that electoral bodies must strictly follow legal procedures to maintain public trust in the democratic process. The ruling aligns with previous cases that stressed the importance of legal compliance in election administration.

While some may view the judgment through a political lens, the Supreme Court acted within its constitutional mandate to ensure fair elections.

The ongoing conflict between the executive and legislative arms in Rivers State threatens governance. To restore stability, both sides must prioritize the interests of the people and seek a political resolution.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara has already invited lawmakers for discussions on key governance issues, including the 2025 budget. Both sides must engage in sincere negotiations to prevent further political instability.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, RSIEC has scheduled a fresh local government election for August 2025. It must ensure full compliance with electoral laws to avoid further legal challenges.

To restore public trust, the Rivers State Government should consider reconstituting RSIEC with independent and competent members to guarantee fair elections.

The state legislature should refrain from extending the tenure of local government officials whose terms have expired, as such actions have been deemed unconstitutional in cases like Ajuwon v. Governor of Oyo State (2021) and Governor of Ekiti State v. Olubunmi (2017).

The Attorney General of the Federation should ensure that constitutional provisions guaranteeing local government autonomy are upheld. Additionally, the National Assembly should consider legal reforms to prevent state governments from manipulating local elections.

A peaceful resolution requires a willingness to compromise. Since the key political actors were once allies, they should find common ground for the sake of the state’s progress.

A long-standing belief exists that a perpetual injunction prevents scrutiny of Rivers State’s financial dealings. However, such injunctions are not absolute and can be vacated under specific legal circumstances.

Courts can overturn an injunction if new facts emerge that make it unnecessary or oppressive. In Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd (1991), the Court of Appeal held that perpetual injunctions are not immutable and can be lifted when justice demands it.

Injunctions that obstruct law enforcement agencies, like the EFCC, from performing their duties can be challenged on public policy grounds. In Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that no individual or entity can permanently shield themselves from investigation.

If the injunction was obtained through deceit, it can be set aside. In Olu Ibukun v. Olu Ibukun (1974), the court emphasized that any order based on fraud or suppression of facts is invalid.

The National Assembly can pass laws limiting the use of perpetual injunctions to block financial investigations. Such reforms would strengthen anti-corruption efforts.

• Ladunni v. Kukoyi (1972): The Supreme Court ruled that a perpetual injunction could be lifted when enforcing it contradicts justice.
• Cooper v. Reynolds (1870): A U.S. case establishing that injunctions should not continue indefinitely if their basis ceases to exist.
• Board of Education v. Dickey (1915): Highlighted that perpetual injunctions are not truly permanent and can be modified under equitable principles.

If the EFCC presents a compelling argument, it can seek a judicial review to overturn the Rivers State perpetual injunction and restore financial accountability.

A perpetual injunction is often seen as a final court order, but in reality, it is not absolute or irreversible. Courts have the power to modify or remove such injunctions under specific circumstances, especially when justice, public policy, or new evidence demands it.

Courts can set aside an injunction if the conditions that led to its issuance have significantly changed. In Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270, the Court of Appeal ruled that perpetual injunctions are not permanent if enforcing them would become unjust or unnecessary due to new developments.

Courts generally oppose injunctions that prevent law enforcement agencies from performing their duties. For example, in Fawehinmi v. I.G.P. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 606, the Supreme Court held that no one could permanently shield themselves from investigation. Similarly, if an injunction blocks anti-corruption agencies from probing financial misconduct, it can be challenged on public interest grounds.

If an injunction was obtained through deception or concealment of critical information, a court can overturn it. In Olu Ibukun v. Olu Ibukun (1974) 2 SC 41, the Supreme Court ruled that any judgment secured through fraudulent means must be set aside.

Courts can review their own rulings if an injunction was granted based on a legal mistake. In Ladunni v. Kukoyi (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 13, the Supreme Court emphasized that such injunctions are subject to correction when enforcing them would contradict justice.

This principle is not limited to Nigeria. In R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, a UK court affirmed that injunctions, including perpetual ones, can be modified if legal circumstances change. Similarly, in the U.S. case Cooper v. Reynolds (1870), the court ruled that an injunction should not continue indefinitely if its basis is no longer valid.

Beyond court action, lawmakers can intervene by passing laws that limit the use of perpetual injunctions, particularly against public agencies tasked with accountability and governance oversight.