A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and a King’s Counsel in the UK, Professor Fidelis Oditah has alleged that Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of federalism’s principles by stopping the FAAC allocation to Rivers State. He argued that the court lacks the constitutional authority to deny Rivers State its FAAC allocations.
He emphasized that there are differences between Obasanjo’s direct seizure of Lagos local government funds and the current court’s interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the law. He stated that while Obasanjo attempted to withhold local government funds from Lagos State, he never attempted to seize the state’s direct allocation, as this would have been beyond his authority. He also identified that the 2004 Supreme Court decision definitively ruled Obasanjo’s actions regarding local government funds as both illegal and unconstitutional, establishing a significant legal precedent in Nigeria’s federal system.
He said in an interview with Arise TV from 5:30, ‘It’s not a dispute between the lawmakers and the governor. The entitlement to receive FAAC monies every month is very central to the federalism that we operate. It is not possible for Rivers State to be a federating state and not receive FAAC money. This is very different from the dispute that Obasanjo had with Governor Tinubu at that time, where Obasanjo seized the local government money.
He did not seize the monies of Lagos State; he couldn’t seize the monies of the state. He thought he could seize the monies of the local government, but the Supreme Court in 2004 made it clear that he had no power to do so, and that his act was totally illegal and unconstitutional. And, of course, the difference between Obasanjo seizing local government funds in Lagos and the federal high court purporting to interpret or misinterpret the law – there is some difference. But clearly, the judge did not understand federalism, she has no power to make that order. Rivers State cannot be a federating state without being entitled to receive that money.”