A Rivers State High Court, sitting in Port Harcourt has nullified the amendment of Section 3 of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (RSHASC) Law.
The Hon. Martins Amaewhule-led lawmakers amended the section to strip the state governor of the constitutional power to appoint RSHASC chairman and members.
A non-governmental organisation, the Association of Legal Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners, dragged the House of Assembly to court over the amendment of the section of the RSHASC Law.
Delivering judgement on the matter yesterday, the trial judge, Justice Kariba Dagogo-Jack, said the amended law no 3, 2024, was inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, and as such null and void.
Dagogo-Jack stated that the constitution unambiguously states that the governor should constitute the House of Assembly Service Commission and some other commissions, boards, and institutes, but only based on the confirmation of the Assembly.
The court declared that the amendment, which shifted the power to constitute the House of Assembly Service Commission to the Speaker, contradicts the doctrine of separation of powers, which guarantees the right of the various arms of government to operate independently of each other.
The judge further stated that the Rivers State House of Assembly is not authorised by law to exercise executive powers, which include establishing the Rivers State House of Assembly Commission.
This commission is among the bodies described in part two of the third schedule of the Constitution whose membership is to be constituted by the Governor.
Speaking with journalists shortly after the judgement, lead counsel for the NGO, Barrister Boma Owunabo, said the suit was instituted in the public interest to challenge the Amaewhule-led Rivers State Assembly’s usurpation of executive powers through the amendment.
Owunabo said the NGO was dedicated to ensuring that every legislation in the country is in tandem with the provisions of the Constitution.
He commended the presiding judge for her forthrightness, due assessment and evaluation of evidence before delivering the judgement, stating that the judgement was a victory for good governance and the rule of law.
