Rivers State’s Last Hope: How Otisi Unraveled What Oyewole Ignored, and How Barka’s Panel Must Now Act to Halt the Abuse of Jurisdiction and Restore Justice
By John Egbeazien Oshodi
Ultimately, this is not just a battle for judicial clarity—it is a battle for the future of Rivers State, the protection of its financial resources, and the preservation of its democratic integrity. Section 28, the rule of law, and the principles of justice must be upheld to safeguard the state’s governance and the welfare of its people. Justice Barka’s decision holds a pivotal role. Should his panel stand firm against political manipulation and judicial overreach, it will resonate as a powerful affirmation of Nigeria’s judiciary’s resilience in resisting corruption and external pressures.
The Fight for Rivers State’s Future: Otisi’s Integrity vs. Oyewole’s Calculated Indifference to Section 28, Judicial Betrayal, and Political Games – Will Barka’s Panel Rise to the Challenge of Saving Rivers State from Financial Ruin or Surrender to External Pressures, Compromise, and Judicial Overreach, as Omotosho, Lifu, and Abdulmalik Rulings Threaten its Survival?
In the landscape of Nigeria’s legal system, the ongoing conflict over Rivers State’s governance, particularly in relation to the financial management and legislative authority of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, has exposed deep fractures within the judiciary. The recent rulings by various courts, including those of Justices Omotosho, Abdulmalik, and Oyewole, have brought to light the painful reality of a judiciary that may not always be impartial, often swayed by external political pressures and compromises that threaten to destabilize the very core of Nigerian democracy.
At the heart of this struggle is Section 28 of the Electoral Act, a provision that, as Justice Onyekachi Otisi rightly pointed out, does not apply to local elections. Yet, several judicial figures, including Justice Peter Lifu and Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, have overstepped their bounds, wielding legal authority that should not extend to state matters. This overreach has sparked a larger debate: Is the judiciary upholding its duty to the people, or has it become another tool in the hands of powerful political forces?
The Judicial Betrayal and Its Cost
Justice James Omotosho, in his ruling, declared the passage of the Rivers State 2024 Appropriation Bill as invalid, merely because it was passed by five members of the House of Assembly. His ruling was not only misguided but out of touch with the constitutional realities of local governance. The Rivers State Assembly, despite the small number of legislators, legally passed the budget under the authority of the constitution. Omotosho’s dismissal of the assembly’s actions as a “constitutional aberration” was a betrayal of the foundational principles of Nigeria’s democracy. His ruling also disregarded the fact that the Amaewhule-led Assembly had declared itself invalid—rendering their objections to the budget legally irrelevant.
This judgment directly threatens the financial stability of Rivers State, as it halts the disbursement of monthly allocations and places significant state resources, including public salaries, at risk. The judicial betrayal of both the state’s governance and its citizens cannot be overstated. If such rulings are allowed to stand, they undermine the very principles of democratic governance, where the will of the people—expressed through their duly elected representatives—should be honored. Instead, the judiciary has appeared to become complicit in undermining that will through legal gymnastics and political manipulation.
Judicial Blindness in the Face of Section 28
As much as Justice Omotosho’s ruling represents a judicial misstep, the decision by Justice Joseph Oyewole in a related matter highlights the depth of judicial blindness in the face of legal truths. While Justice Otisi rightly referenced Section 28 to affirm the limitations of federal electoral jurisdiction over state and local elections, Justice Oyewole ignored this critical point in his own ruling. The fact that Section 28 of the Electoral Act applies only to federal elections—governorship and area council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)—was crucial in clarifying the boundaries of federal judicial intervention in state matters. Yet, in his decision, Justice Oyewole failed to bring up this critical distinction, paving the way for more legal confusion and political manipulation.
This judicial blindness is not merely an oversight; it reflects a deeper problem within Nigeria’s legal framework. The law is supposed to be a safeguard for justice and democracy, not a weapon of external political forces. The failure to recognize the difference between federal and state jurisdiction reveals a troubling tendency for the courts to stray from their constitutional duties, leaving democracy vulnerable to manipulation. The omission of this essential legal truth exposes a system in which the law is being weaponized rather than upheld.
The Battle for Rivers State’s Survival
The question now lies with Justice Hamma Barka, who must decide whether the Barka-led panel will stand firm in upholding the integrity of the judiciary or fall victim to the same external pressures and compromise that have marred previous rulings. The weight of this decision cannot be overstated. If the Barka panel does not reverse the damaging decisions of Omotosho, Abdulmalik, and Oyewole, the very survival of Rivers State’s governance, and by extension its people, is at risk.
The external pressures facing the judiciary are real and palpable. Political manipulation, especially at the hands of powerful figures like former Governor Nyesom Wike, whose influence continues to reverberate through Rivers State, casts a long shadow over the legal proceedings. The compromise of judicial impartiality by powerful political forces is no longer a mere allegation; it is a palpable reality, evidenced by the highly controversial rulings of previous courts.
Rivers State is in the midst of a legal crisis that threatens to engulf not only the state’s finances but also the very fabric of its democratic governance. Public salaries, essential services, and the livelihoods of thousands are all at stake as the judicial system falters in its responsibility to uphold the constitution and protect the people. These are not just legal questions—they are questions of survival, equity, and justice.
A Psychological Battle for Justice
As a psychologist, I approach this situation from a human perspective. The psychological toll on Rivers State’s citizens, who are caught in the crossfire of this judicial and political battle, is profound. Uncertainty, fear, and anxiety loom large as the future of the state’s governance is decided in courtrooms far removed from the realities of the people’s daily lives. The courts’ decisions ripple outward, creating an atmosphere of hopelessness and frustration among the citizens, who rely on the judiciary to provide clarity, justice, and stability. The waiting game—the uncertainty of awaiting a decision from Justice Barka’s panel—only adds to the stress, pushing the people into psychological turmoil, as they face the very real possibility that their needs, rights, and democratic freedoms may be sacrificed at the altar of political maneuvering.
Psychologically, this uncertainty can have devastating consequences for the morale of the state’s residents. Trust in the judicial system, the only avenue through which the citizens can expect to secure justice, is eroded with each day that passes without a resolution. The question remains: will Justice Barka’s panel have the courage to stand against these external influences and restore the integrity of Rivers State’s legal system, or will they capitulate, allowing the forces of political manipulation to continue their reign of disruption?
As a psychologist, I recognize the deep psychological and moral impact of these judicial manipulations. Rivers State, and indeed Nigeria, cannot withstand further erosion of legal integrity. Justice Barka, as the panel’s head, stands at a decisive crossroads: to restore trust in the judiciary or widen the gap between the system and the people it is meant to serve. Fairness, transparency, and accountability are essential in governance, especially when the livelihoods of citizens and the nation’s democratic foundation are at risk. The Supreme Court must act decisively—Nigerians are exhausted by this judicial turmoil. The moment for true justice is now.
Rivers State’s Fight for Justice and Survival
Ultimately, this is not just a battle for judicial clarity—it is a battle for the future of Rivers State, the protection of its financial resources, and the preservation of its democratic integrity. Section 28, the rule of law, and the principles of justice must be upheld to safeguard the state’s governance and the welfare of its people. Justice Barka’s decision holds a pivotal role. Should his panel stand firm against political manipulation and judicial overreach, it will resonate as a powerful affirmation of Nigeria’s judiciary’s resilience in resisting corruption and external pressures.
However, if Justice Barka chooses to ignore what he deeply knows is right, the legal and political future of Rivers State will remain in grave peril. The people of Rivers State are waiting, and the world is watching. The judiciary now faces a critical choice: will it champion the rule of law and justice, or will it succumb to the darker forces seeking to undermine democracy and fairness?
Painfully, should Barka refuse or yield to what he knows deeply is wrong, we can only hope that God’s will, or the intervention of Nigeria’s founding fathers, will prevail, inspiring those with the spirit of Otisi to rise and restore justice. This is not merely a fight for today—it is a fight for the survival and future of Rivers State and, indeed, Nigeria.
The habit of some Nigerian judges succumbing to external pressures or using the vague term “reserved” for judgments without clear timelines is deeply troubling. It fosters uncertainty, erodes trust, and invites speculation. Justice delayed in this way is justice denied, undermining the rule of law and public confidence. Nigerians deserve clarity and accountability—not decisions left in limbo. This practice must stop.
…………………………………………………
John Egbeazien Oshodi
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic/clinical psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University, Weldios University and Walden University.
