Renowned attorney and seasoned actor Kenneth Okonkwo has expressed serious concerns about what he sees as contradictions in the Supreme Court’s decisions pertaining to state legislative assemblies in a scathing legal analysis shared via Symfoni TV. This is especially true in light of the recent ruling regarding the Rivers State House of Assembly.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
Okonkwo responded to the Supreme Court’s recent decision, highlighting what he considers contradictory positions in similar cases. He specifically referenced the ruling on Plateau State, where the Supreme Court had validated the constitutionality of the state’s House of Assembly, despite the fact that only six members remained due to defections from the other members. Okonkwo questioned the apparent contradiction when, in a more recent case involving Rivers State, the Supreme Court declared it an “absurdity” for a governor to present a budget before a four-member House of Assembly, despite the defection of the remaining 27 members. “The Supreme Court that said that the Plateau State House of Assembly is properly constituted by six members because the remaining members have defected is still the same Supreme Court I’m hearing saying that it is an absurdity that the governor presented a budget before a four-man House of Assembly when it was obvious that the other 27 have defected,” Okonkwo pointed out.
The veteran lawyer emphasized the critical importance of judicial consistency, especially when it comes to maintaining social order and ensuring the integrity of legal rulings. “The law is there by the Supreme Court, and if laws are not consistent, it will be difficult for that law to perform the functions of law, which is bringing orderliness in society,” Okonkwo stated, underlining that inconsistent rulings can lead to confusion and undermine public trust in the judicial system.
Okonkwo’s commentary comes at a time when there are growing constitutional debates regarding the proper constitution of state assemblies, particularly in cases involving mass defections of lawmakers. These cases highlight tensions between different interpretations of the law, especially as they relate to the functioning of state legislatures amid shifting political allegiances.
His analysis draws attention to the broader implications of judicial consistency in Nigeria’s legal framework, particularly in politically sensitive matters. The proper constitution of legislative bodies is central to ensuring that laws and policies are enacted with full representation, and as such, the interpretation of such cases by the judiciary holds significant weight in shaping Nigeria’s political and legal landscape.
Okonkwo’s concerns reflect a wider debate within Nigeria’s legal community regarding the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, especially in cases that can affect the stability of political institutions and governance.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
