Arise News political commentator and well-known attorney Sam Amadi has voiced serious reservations about the latest Federal High Court decision that forbids the distribution of federal funds to Rivers State. Amadi raised concerns about the ruling’s potential effects on state autonomy and governance in a thorough interview, arguing that it misinterprets fundamental federalism and statutory entitlement concepts…. CLICK TO READ THE FULL NEWS HERE▶️▶️
The ruling, which has drawn widespread attention and criticism, comes in the context of ongoing political tensions in Rivers State, particularly under Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s administration. Critics of the state budget have pointed to alleged incompetence and mismanagement as justifications for withholding federal funds. However, Amadi firmly contends that budgetary issues should not lead to punitive measures that affect a state’s financial resources.
“While it’s true that Rivers State’s budget may face accusations of incompetence, that should not justify withholding its federal allocation,” Amadi stated.
Amadi proposed a more nuanced approach to the court’s decision. He acknowledged that while the court may rightfully declare the budget invalid and restrict actions based on it, leveraging internal legislative shortcomings to authorize federal control over state funds creates a troubling precedent. “It’s arguably wrong to use internal illegalities to give the Federal Government the right to hijack and keep statutory allocations due to the state,” he asserted.
In his remarks, Amadi highlighted the potential consequences of such a ruling on the principles of federalism. “Yes, the Governor may be running an incompetent budget, but we have to stop funding him. I don’t think the two are the same. So statutory transfers can go,” he argued. He suggested that while the court could issue orders to prevent the state from acting on an invalid budget, this should not equate to withholding funds due to the state.CLICK TO READ THE FULL NEWS HERE▶️▶️
