Refund our 300 million naira - inside Rivers goment response to di Bar Association
Rivers State goment say make di Nigerian Bar Association NBA refund di 300 million naira ($186,000) wey dem pay for hosting rights as dem shift dia annual conference from Port Harcourt to Enugu.
Dis one dey for statement wey Hector Igbikiowubo, SSA Media to di Rivers State Goment sing to react to di NBA earlier Statement.
E say di reason why dem shift dia annual conference from Port Harcourt to Enugu, sake of di emergency rule for di State dey affect democracy and di rule of law, dey misleading and e no fit a professional bodi like dem.
On Friday 10 April, 2025, di umbrella body for lawyers for Nigeria, di NBA announce say dem don shift dia annual conference wey for hold for Port Harcourt to Enugu sake of di "suspension of democratically elected state officials by di President Bola Tinubu-led Federal Goment.
Di NBA statement wey di President, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN); General Secretary, Dr Mobolaji Ojibara and Chairman of di Annual General Conference AGC Planning Committee, Emeka Obegolu (SAN) follow sign, say: "di NBA no fit, in good conscience, proceed wit di AGC for a state wey dey governed unconstitutionally by a Sole Administrator."
Dis statement by di NBA cause plenty reaction as pipo lament di loss of business opportunities wey dis shift of di NBA conference dey cost to businesses for di State.
But di Rivers State goment say even though di NBA get right to determine di venue of dia events, dem no gree wit di reasons dem give for dia decision - particularly di insinuation say di Sole Administrator actions dey undermine democracy and di rule of law, as dat wan no dey fair.
Di reason for di state of emergency
Di Rivers State Goment explain say di NBA dey overlook di constitutional basis of di current administration as state of emergency na a necessary response to check a breakdown of public order and democratic processes.
E say President Bola Tinubu, as e exercise im constitutional authority, act in di best interest of di state to restore stability. So di Sole Administrator mandate dey clear: to oversee a transitional period wey go ensure di return of full democratic governance in line with di Constitution.
"To suggest say dis intervention "dey flout di rule of law" no only dey incorrect but e dey ignore di Supreme Court rulings wey validate key decisions wey e don make during dis period.'
E refer di association to di landmark judgment of di Supreme Court in Suit No. SC/CV/1176/2024 (Rivers State House of Assembly & Oda vs. Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) & Nine Odas), wia di apex court rule say any local goment election wey dey conducted in violation of di Electoral Act dey "unconstitutional, null, and void.'
Di statement say di Sole Administrator don stand by im commitment to:
- Restore democratic institutions as soon as e dey practicable.
- Uphold di constitutional rights of all residents, including freedom of movement, speech, and association.
- Respect judicial pronouncements, including those of di Supreme Court, wey dey guided di administration actions.
E add say di NBA, as a body of legal minds, suppose know better than to reduce a complex constitutional matter to political sensationalism.
'We dey committed to democracy'
Di Rivers State Goment add say e dey wonda say di NBA, despite dia "principled position"— no address di refund of di N300 million wey di goment don already pay for di hosting rights of di 2025 conference.
"If di NBA truly stand on principle, make dem demonstrate di same integrity by promptly returning dis funds rather than benefiting from a state wey dem dey publicly discredit."
Di statement come appeal for constructive engagement as Rivers State dey pass through a challenging but necessary phase for dia democratic journey.
"So instead of contributing to unnecessary tension, we expect di NBA - as a critical stakeholder for Nigeria democracy - to engage constructively, offer solutions instead of amplifying divisive narratives, as di Sole Administrator dey focused on im mandate to stabilize the state and facilitate a smooth return to full constitutional governance.' e tok.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The woman who bested Big Oil
Photo byClimate activism isn't the typical realm you associate notable eponymous court rulings with. But for Sarah Finch, victory in a five-year legal battle last June not only created a judgement in her name, but a strong precedent over the future of fossil fuel drilling projects in Britain. The 'Finch ruling' came after the supreme court decided in favour of the lifelong climate campaigner in her case against Surrey County Council, and its plans to grant planning permission for an oil drilling well on the Weald in Surrey. She successfully argued that existing planning laws meant that the 'downstream' emissions from the produce of proposed coal, oil and gas sites must be accounted for when considering projects for approval – not just ones generated by sites in of itself. 'The novelty hasn't worn off just yet,' Finch told me when we spoke via video call, nearly a year on from her landmark win. Openly shy about the relative notoriety that's come since, Finch is learning to process it in her own way: 'Almost on a daily basis I'll see my name in an article I'm reading, or the pictures of me outside the Supreme Court… sometimes I even wonder if I've entered some kind of delusional space [thinking]: 'Did this really happen?! Did I just imagine my name was on this case?'' It is hard to understate the collateral impact of the court ruling last June (which Finch put her name to, on behalf of the Weald Action Group). The ruling proved a death knell to the few fossil fuel projects vying for survival. Though the court's decision did not overturn Surrey County Council's initial approval of planning permission, UK Oil and Gas, the firm backing the project, indefinitely postponed production on Horse Hill, Surrey last October. Finch recalled being 'thrilled'. Plans to open a new coal mine in Cumbria – set to be Britain's first in 30 years – were quashed by the courts last September on the same grounds as the Finch ruling. It doesn't just impact big oil and gas projects: plans for a 'megafarm' in Norfolk were scrapped last month due to a 'lack of information' provided by its backing firm over its potential impact on ecology and the climate. ' I watched that planning meeting online and again, it's one of those cases where I just kept hearing my name mentioned: 'Finch means that we have to look at these indirect effects…' So it's been a really useful judgment all around,' the campaigner said. 'It's just clarified that any decision-maker deciding on any kind of development has to look at all of [its] effects on the climate, and they can't exclude any on arbitrary grounds.' The most impactful 'Finch ruling' came in January, when Edinburgh's court of session scuppered previously approved plans to withdraw oil and gas from Rosebank and Jackdaw, two oil fields in the North Sea. The plans for Rosebank and Jackdaw – approved under the previous Conservative government between 2022-2023 – had a combined private big oil backing of over £3.3bn. A decision on a new planning application, with 'downstream' emissions factored in, is expected soon, which Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, is expected to have a big say over. 'Legal wins are really powerful, but they're also vulnerable to politics,' Finch noted. Miliband has long been a critic of Rosebank (previously calling it a 'colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism'). But he faces a pro-business Chancellor in Rachel Reeves desperate to plant seeds of growth in Britain's withering public finances. 'I really hope that they will reject it,' Finch said of the Labour government. 'I can't see any possible way in which anybody could look up the [potential] amount of emissions and say that that's okay,' she added. (Anti-North Sea oil campaigners cite research that claims its produce would emit more CO2 than the 28 poorest countries do in a year.) Finch hopes the government will listen to her and other climate campaigners that have responded to two government consultations on the future of North Sea oil and gas: ' It shouldn't just be about Rachel Reeves vs Ed Miliband. It's about the best brains in the country and what they've all said about it.' She added: ' We've seen fires, floods; farmers not being able to plant their crops… There's no doubt that oil and gas has brought us to the brink of a real crisis. Every new field [the government] allows – particularly one as big as Rosebank – just makes that worse.' Despite her victory in the highest court in the land, Finch has an underlying anxiety about her judgement. 'I wanted to make sure that the ruling does get embedded into actual planning law and policies,' she said. This has meant responding to multiple consultations and supporting other localised groups with campaigning. But the surge of Reform councillors following the local elections has likely dawned a new era of localised anti-net zero zeal. The May 1 elections 'were a set of truly terrible results,' Finch said. Reform wrested control of Lincolnshire County Council – with new metro mayor Andrea Jenkyns, as well as MP and deputy leader Richard Tice in tow – and has pledged to block its local 'net stupid zero' industry, which generates nearly £1bn for the local economy. In recent days, Jenkyns expressed support to revive a shale gas fracking proposal in Lincolnshire that was quashed last November following – you guessed it – Finch's ruling. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'What some of those Reform councils don't understand is that their job is to implement national planning policies,' Finch said. 'They can't just wave things through; they still have to go through the proper processes.' The Labour government has been defiant on Reform's plans, repeating the mantra that they are 'on the side of the builders, not the blockers'. 'We're at a really difficult time,' Finch said, 'it's sad that the climate has got sucked into culture wars, again.' But she still remains optimistic. The local elections also saw a 'big wave of support' for Liberal Democrat and Green councillors. Zack Polanski this week catalysed his bid to become leader of the Green Party this summer, calling to cultivate a eco-populist movement that rivals Reform. 'The progressive parties must properly respond', Finch stressed, but noted in her quintessential modesty, 'I'm not a very populist type person myself'. What does the future hold for her? 'So long as I've got a platform and people want to talk to me – I, uh, am up for it,' she said after pausing for thought. While she won't be at the forefront of any future populist movement of the eco-focused left, Finch's name will perhaps be seen as a very important footnote in its history, and that seems suited to her humble disposition. 'I'm not an expert on anything, a climate scientist, lawyer, or a politician,' she concluded, 'I'm a campaigner that happened… to get the accidental profile I've got. And I want to use it to help however I can.' This article was originally published as an edition of the Green Transition, New Statesman Spotlight's weekly newsletter on the economics of net zero. To see more editions and subscribe, click here. Related
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Labour-led cuts plan is shameful badge of dishonour for capital
Angus Robertson at Redhall Walled Garden This week I was pleased to join Edinburgh and Lothian MSPs at Redhall Walled Garden along with Thrive Collective, the partnership of community-based mental health providers that delivers prevention-focused support to people across the city – the very services now facing the axe under Edinburgh's new mental health plans. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... We stood in united and urgent opposition to the Labour-led proposals from the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board (EIJB) to slash almost all community mental health funding in the capital. If these cuts are implemented, Edinburgh could become the only capital city in Europe without local government-funded mental health support. That would be a shameful badge of dishonour for Scotland's capital, and one we must do everything possible to prevent. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Let's be clear: The proposed £2.2 million cut to block-funded mental health contracts would devastate services that meet people where they are – often those with severe mental illness, people living under Compulsory Treatment Orders, or with conditions like Huntington's. Organisations such as Redhall Walled Garden and those within the Thrive Collective have long delivered vital early intervention services, keeping people out of hospital, in employment and engaged with family and community life. Now they are facing an existential threat. What's most disturbing is that this is not an isolated misjudgment, but part of a broader pattern. From Westminster to the City Chambers, Labour appears committed to carrying on the austerity agenda of the Conservatives. Cut quietly, cut deep and only reconsider when public outrage makes the cost too high. It's a cynical, backwards approach to public service and one that is failing the people of Edinburgh. Labour in Edinburgh, backed by their coalition partners, has demonstrated that they are no better than the service-slicing Tories who came before them. The SNP warned about this trajectory and, sadly, those warnings are now being realised. In the EIJB, SNP Councillor Vicky Nicolson, along with only three others, voted against these devastating proposals. Her powerful speech before the vote reminded us that small investments in community support prevent far greater costs – social, human and financial – down the line. Vicky's experience in community-based prevention work shows exactly what we risk losing: support that prevents homelessness, keeps families together, and stops people falling into crisis. But such outcomes are only possible if the resources – the staff, community spaces, third sector organisations – still exist. Once dismantled, these services will not be easily rebuilt. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The consultation process was, frankly, a disgrace. Rushed through in four weeks with a belated and inadequate easy-read version, many participants – including people with learning disabilities – said they could not provide an informed response. Their voices were not heard. Worse still, there has been little attempt to reflect their input in the final plans. The third sector, again, was brought in late and left feeling tokenised, not trusted as the experts they are. Organisations like Health All Round and Big Hearts are among those already bruised by earlier EIJB decisions. Now, the axe swings again. At the very moment when mental health support should be expanding to meet rising demand and cost-of-living pressures, Labour has chosen to retreat. The SNP will continue to fight these short-sighted, harmful cuts – in Edinburgh and in every part of government. We will always stand up for the poorest and most vulnerable, protect prevention and early intervention, and ensure Scotland's capital is a place where mental health support is a right, not a privilege. Angus Robertson is SNP MSP for Edinburgh Central and Constitution, External Affairs and Culture Secretary
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court gives Trump a win on deporting migrants
Sotomayor wrote that her colleagues are "rewarding lawlessness." "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," she wrote in a dissent joined by Kagan and Jackson. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." The majority did not provide an explanation for their decision, which is common in emergency appeals. The administration said the order is preventing potentially thousands of deportations by requiring an "onerous set of procedures" aimed at preventing migrants from being sent to a country where they reasonably fear they could be persecuted, tortured or killed. "The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in his emergency appeal. He complained that the order is forcing the government to hold "dangerous criminals" at a military base in Djibouti so they can contest their removal to South Sudan - a problem attorneys for the migrants said the administration created for itself. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the migrants need to be told where they are going and given a meaningful opportunity to tell the United States that they might be harmed if sent there. "This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States," Murphy wrote. To back up his order, Murphy in part cited the Supreme Court's April decision that migrants must be able to contest whether they can be removed using a wartime law. On May 21, Murphy said the Trump administration violated his order by removing eight migrants to conflict-ridden South Sudan without giving them an opportunity to object. The migrants' lawyers said the administration has "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Many, if not most, of the migrants covered by the judge's order have no criminal convictions, the lawyers said. And those with serious criminal convictions who were chosen for the flights to Libya and South Sudan are equally protected under the law from basic human rights violations, they argued. One of the migrants represented by the attorneys, a Guatemalan man, who was deported to Mexico, was flown back on June 4 after the judge ordered his return. Murphy issued that directive after the Justice Department said it had wrongly told the court the man was not afraid of being sent to Mexico.
