The recent Federal High Court ruling that blocks federal allocations to Rivers State is sparking debate among constitutional scholars, with legal analyst Sam Amadi critiquing the decision as potentially conflicting with Nigeria’s federal framework. During an interview with Arise News from 5:43, Amadi argued that the ruling, which directs the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to withhold the state’s allocation, undermines the principle of state entitlements in a federal system.
“This judgement arguably contradicts the constitutional framework of federalism,” Amadi stated. He emphasized that instructing a federal agency to withhold funds constitutionally due to a state goes against the rights inherent to the federal structure. “Even if we concede all other issues…can those invalidity [issues] authorize the hijacking of the statutory entitlement of states?” Amadi asked, asserting that withholding these funds from a state sets a dangerous precedent for the autonomy of state entities in the federation.
Amadi’s analysis brings to light the delicate balance between federal and state powers in Nigeria. He contends that regardless of internal legislative issues, federal entitlements should remain protected, as these resources are fundamental to the integrity of the federal system.
In his words;
“This Judgement arguably contradicts the constitutional framework of Federalism. It amounts to directing an agency of the Federal Government, the Central Bank to withhold the constitutional entitlement belonging to State and so I think that’s one area to fault this judgement. Even if we concede all other issues that appropriation is invalid, the composition of the house is invalid. This question here will be can those invalidity authorize the hijacking of the statutory entitlement of states in the Federation. I would argue as a constitutional lawyer myself that, that’s not right”