Constitutional and human rights lawyer, Femi Falana SAN, on Tuesday faulted President Bola Tinubu’s order on the reinstatement of 27 lawmakers in the Rivers State House of Assembly.
The lawmakers, who are loyalists of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesome Wike, on December 11 dumped the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The PDP consequently asked the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to declare the seats vacant and conduct a fresh election into the constituencies.
The President on Monday met with the Rivers State Governor, Fubara, and Wike at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, to resolve the three-month impasse in the state.
At the meeting, President Tinubu ordered all the parties in the dispute to sheathe their words.
He also ordered the reinstatement of Martin Amaewhule as the Speaker of the Assembly.
Amaewhule and his foot soldiers have since been reinstated in the House in line with the presidential directive.
However, in a statement he signed, Falana stressed that presidential interventions must always be anchored on the provisions of the constitution.
He pointed out that defecting lawmakers can only retain their seats if they can prove that the political party that sponsored them has been divided into factions.
He said: “With respect, the presidential reinstatement of the 27 cross carpeting members of the Rivers State House of Assembly by the Presidency is alien to the Constitution in every material particular.”
“The seats of the cross carpeting members have been declared vacant by the Speaker known to law. To that extent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is mandatorily required to conduct the by-election once the ex parte order issued by the Federal High Court last Friday is quashed.
“Even if all the cases in the Rivers State High Court and the Federal High Court are withdrawn in line with the advice of the President, it is submitted that all actions taken by the Speaker (Ehie) recognised by the Rivers State High Court, remain valid, including his pronouncement on the vacant seats of the 27 cross carpeting members of the House.
“In other words, only a court of law is constitutionally competent to set aside the pronouncement of the Speaker which is anchored on section 109 of the Constitution. Furthermore, as the Speaker has not been removed by the required number of legislators, a presidential directive cannot remove him.”
