Connect with us

Opinions

FAAC Allocation Suspension To Rivers: A FHC Ruling that Misses The Mark

Published

on

12 Views

By Muhammad Jibrin Barde

The Federal High Court (FHC) ruling, which restrains the release of Rivers State’s funds in the absence of an Appropriation Law passed by the Rivers State House of Assembly, raises significant constitutional concerns, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2004 judgment (SC 70/2004).

Federal Allocation to States and Constitutional Guarantees:

The Constitution guarantees states’ entitlement to allocations from the Federation Account, and the Supreme Court in SC 70/2004 upheld that such allocations are a constitutional right that cannot be withheld arbitrarily by the federal government.

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Lagos State found the federal government’s attempt to withhold funds unconstitutional, establishing that allocations due to states should be disbursed as constitutionally mandated.

This precedent implies that Rivers State is constitutionally entitled to its allocations from the Federation Account, and interference with these funds may constitute a breach of that entitlement.

Requirement for an Appropriation Law:

The FHC ruling is centered around the requirement that an Appropriation Law must be in place before funds in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State can be accessed. According to Section 120(2)-(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, funds can only be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund based on an Appropriation Law approved by the State House of Assembly.

However, this clause does not extend to funds from the Federation Account before they reach the state treasury; rather, it governs the usage of the funds once they are within the state’s Consolidated

Revenue Fund.Conflict with Supreme Court Judgment:

The Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling indicates that federal allocations should not be impeded once they are due to a state.

The FHC’s ruling attempts to impose a condition that could delay or restrict the disbursement of funds already allocated to Rivers State.

This could be viewed as overstepping by preventing the state from receiving its constitutionally guaranteed allocations, even if these funds are held in trust until an Appropriation Law is enacted.

This interpretation aligns with SC 70/2004, suggesting that allocations should reach the state without obstruction and that any issues regarding appropriation should be resolved at the state level post-disbursement.

Legality of FHC Injunction in Absence of Appropriation Law:

While it is lawful to require an Appropriation Law for spending from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the FHC’s decision to prevent the transfer of Federation Account allocations until the passage of an Appropriation Law may be seen as an interference in the financial autonomy of Rivers State.

Typically, withholding funds as a coercive measure to ensure compliance with budgetary laws is not within the FHC’s purview if it restricts the constitutional allocation process established by the Supreme Court.

Possible Grounds for Challenging the FHC Ruling:

Rivers State might argue that the FHC’s ruling contradicts the Supreme Court’s interpretation in SC 70/2004 and infringes upon the state’s financial rights by imposing a restriction not prescribed by the Constitution.

Additionally, the restriction on utilizing funds for election-related purposes without an Appropriation Law might exceed the court’s jurisdiction by interfering in state functions outside federal oversight.

Once funds are allocated from the Federation Account to a state, they become the state’s constitutional entitlement and are protected from external interference by the Federal Government or any federal agency.

Let me also clarify any misunderstanding that may arise regarding the core constitutional issues and the Supreme Court precedent in SC 70/2004. Distinction Between Local Government

Funding and State Allocation:

The Supreme Court case in SC 70/2004 clarified a crucial principle: the constitutional allocation due to states from the Federation Account cannot be withheld by the Federal Government.

The case involved Lagos State’s right to receive funds for its recognized Local Government Authorities.

While Lagos State created additional Local Government Development Areas (LCDAs), it did not prevail on those additional LGAs; however, the Supreme Court did affirm the illegality of the Federal Government’s attempt to withhold funds for the constitutionally recognized LGAs.

Here, the distinction lies in the broader constitutional principle: federal allocations are a constitutional right for each state, and the Federal Government does not have the discretion to withhold funds due to a state based on internal administrative issues within the state, such as the status of a state budget.Federal Government’s Authority.

Regarding State Appropriation Processes:

In the Rivers State matter, the Federal Government is not seeking to “withhold” allocations per se; however, the Federal High Court’s order to prevent the disbursement of Rivers State’s funds due to the absence of an Appropriation Law raises a similar issue of interference.Constitutionally, while an Appropriation Law is required to access funds within the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State (under Section 120 of the Constitution), the constitutional entitlement of federal allocations to the state is distinct.

Once funds are allocated from the Federation Account to a state, they become the state’s constitutional entitlement and are protected from external interference by the Federal Government or any federal agency.

Role of the Federal Government and the Scope of Judicial Orders: The argument suggesting the President could remove a sitting Governor and replace them with an administrator is legally unsound within the current democratic framework.

The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, does not grant the President unilateral powers to remove a governor for issues related to the passing of the state’s budget.

Removal of a Governor is explicitly governed by constitutional provisions, primarily through impeachment processes within the State House of Assembly. Any administrative intervention on the grounds of “national security” would require a formal declaration of a state of emergency and is limited to extraordinary circumstances.

Path Forward for Rivers State:

The simplest resolution would indeed be for the Rivers State Government to present the budget for approval. However, this does not grant the Federal Government or any federal court the authority to impose restrictions on funds due to Rivers State from the Federation Account.

This would represent an overreach and conflict with the constitutional precedent set in SC 70/2004.

Summary

The FHC’s ruling could be challenged on constitutional grounds, as it oversteps by potentially infringing on Rivers State’s rights to its constitutionally mandated allocations.

Any conditions placed on these allocations should respect the autonomy and financial independence of the state as provided by the Constitution.

The Rivers State Governor’s actions or inactions concerning the Appropriation Law should be addressed internally within the state’s legislative processes, without federal interference in the form of withheld allocations.

Conclusion:

The FHC ruling, though focused on enforcing fiscal discipline, potentially conflicts with the 2004 Supreme Court decision that supports the automatic and unconditional allocation of funds to states.

The FHC’s requirement for an Appropriation Law as a precondition for receiving these funds could be argued as unconstitutional interference if it restricts the initial disbursement process.

Rivers State may challenge this ruling in the appellate courts, emphasizing that federal allocations are a constitutional entitlement and should not be conditional on state-level legislative procedures.

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of OHIBABA.COM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

One Million Teachers (1MT) Sparks National Policy Conversation with Transformative Education Model

Let There Be Teachers” Conference is expected to gather over 60,000 teachers—the largest congregation of educators ever on African soil.

Published

on

By

23 Views

At a time when Nigeria’s education system faces unprecedented challenges, 1 Million Teachers (1MT) is offering not just hope—but a proven, homegrown solution.

With an ambitious vision to train and empower one million teachers across underserved communities, 1MT is redefining how education can transform society by placing teachers at the heart of national development.

Rooted in the belief that empowered teachers are the foundation of any thriving society, 1MT’s model has already reached over 100,000 educators across Africa. Its bold target?

One million teachers within five years—creating a ripple effect that will impact millions of learners and entire communities.

A Multi-Pronged Strategy Anchored in Innovation 1MT’s growth is built on five core pillars:

• Blended Learning: A hybrid training model combining online courses with offline community hubs for maximum reach.

• Gamified Teacher Development: The 1MT Blackbelt Program motivates teachers to grow through a merit-based, badge-earning system.

• Community Mentorship: Graduates become mentors, creating self-reinforcing networks of leadership and support.

• Strategic Global Partnerships: Collaborations with institutions like Queen’s University, HP, and Girl Rising extend 1MT’s footprint and credibility.

• Anchor Schools: Designated excellence hubs that serve as real-world laboratories for pedagogy and innovation.

The 1MT Village: Turning Vision into Tangible ChangeMore than just a campus, the 312-acre 1MT Village is a living, breathing demonstration of what happens when visionary thinking meets localised, Afrocentric action.

The Village serves as the “flywheel” of the 1MT mission—its engine room and proving ground.

• A Talent Pipeline: It houses the Centre for Teaching Excellence, Blackbelt educator residencies, the Green School, and a vocational institute—all designed to nurture future education leaders.

• A Regenerative Revenue Model: With businesses in agriculture, tourism, and cultural enterprise, the Village funds its growth sustainably.

• A Magnet for Global Collaboration: Donors, researchers, government officials, and major brands like HP and Mastercard Foundation are drawn to its tangible impact.

• A Policy Laboratory: The Village tests and demonstrates education reforms—from curriculum co-creation to budget simulations—grounded in local realities and teacher leadership.

As Nigeria seeks answers to its educational crisis, 1 Million Teachers are not waiting for change.

Let There Be Teachers’ Conference:

National Advocacy on a Global Stage Slated for September 20, 2025, at Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos, the “Let There Be Teachers” Conference is expected to gather over 60,000 teachers—the largest congregation of educators ever on African soil.

Aiming for a Guinness World Record, the event is more than symbolic; it’s strategic.

The conference will spotlight the 1MT Blackbelt Graduation—a celebration of master educators trained through the 1MT model—and push for policy reforms including:

• Teacher-led education ministries.• Increased education funding

• Higher entry standards for teacher colleges

• Curriculum design co-owned by teachers.

• Official recognition of October 5 (World Teachers’ Day) as a national holiday.

One Movement, Many Voices

The synergy of 1MT, the Village, and the Conference is no accident. Together, they form a powerful ecosystem:

• 1MT is the heart—training teachers with world-class tools.

• The Village is the body—housing the mission in a living curriculum.

The Conference is the voice—speaking truth to power and the world.

As Nigeria seeks answers to its educational crisis, 1 Million Teachers are not waiting for change.

It is building it—acre by acre, teacher by teacher, voice by voice.Let there be teachers. Let them breathe. Let them lead.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Who Will Bell The Cat? By Emeka Monye

Whether we belong to one religious group, political party or ethnicity is inconsequential because the harsh economy is hitting hard on everyone.

Published

on

By

29 Views

The phrase “Who will bell the cat?” originates from a medieval fable about mice who decided to put a bell on a cat to warn them of its approach.

However, they realize that the difficult part is finding a volunteer to actually bell the cat.

The story is a classic fable that teaches a valuable lesson about courage, responsibility, and the challenges of implementing a good idea.

In modern usage, the phrase is often used metaphorically to ask who will take bold action or assume responsibility for a difficult or risky task.

In the story, a group of mice gather to discuss ways to protect themselves from a sly cat that has been terrorizing them.

One clever mouse suggests attaching a bell to the cat’s neck, so the mice can hear it coming and scurry to safety.

The plan seems brilliant, but when the mice are asked who will actually bell the cat, no one volunteers.

Here lies the challenge, everyone was scared of being the victim. The mice realize that it’s easy to propose a plan, but much harder to put it into action, especially when it involves risk.

This fable highlights the importance of considering the practicalities and potential consequences of a plan, as well as the need for courage and willingness to take action.

This is the reality we have found ourselves in modern day Nigeria.

Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.

Every day on various social media, the ranting is hitting the high heavens, ceilings are being shattered and walls are being broken by people, mostly the common man, about the state of affairs in the country.

Unfortunately, and like the proverbial mice, no one seems to have summoned the courage to face the Intimidators of the large chunk of the people.

Many of those caught in this web of animal oppression have been divided along fault lines, including politics, tribe, ethnicity and worst of all, religion.

Whether we belong to one religious group, political party or ethnicity is inconsequential because the harsh economy is hitting hard on everyone.

Everyone is complaining, complaining and lamenting about the harsh economic and political disequilibrium, yet no one is bold enough or has summoned the gut to take charge and offer a real solution to the present socio-economic quagmire.

People are on a daily basis dropping dead, either by committing suicide or accidental, because they cannot afford the basic needs of life such as food.

While the political leaders have been fingered as the architect of this present economic circumstance, the reality existing among the followers who in this context can be likened to the mice, is that most of them have not been able to summon the courage to take action.

At best what we hear is false courage on social media, people hiding under pseudonyms to call on unsuspecting and naive Nigerians to go out and cause mayhem, yet these same faceless groups of people oftentimes turn around to betray the people’s trust.

And When groups or individuals in positions of power prioritize their own interests over the trust placed on them, it can lead to feelings of betrayal and disillusionment.

This phenomenon can be seen in various contexts, including politics, business, and social movements.

When leaders or representatives fail to uphold their responsibilities or act with integrity, it can erode trust and undermine the relationships between those in power and the people they serve.

To mitigate these risks, it’s essential to establish robust systems of accountability, transparency, and checks and balances.

This can help ensure that those in power act in the best interests of the people they serve and not make them live like the proverbial MICE seeking for a VOLUNTEER to bell the CAT

Emeka Monye Is A Journalist And Works With ARISE NEWS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Macron Got Slapped And the World Laughed, This is Why Men Don’t Report Abuse, By Halima Layeni

If the roles were reversed, if President Macron had slapped or pushed Brigitte Macron, there would be protests.

Published

on

By

28 Views

Earlier today, a clip surfaced online showing French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed on the cheek by his wife, Brigitte Macron.

What should have sparked outrage, concern, and deep conversations around domestic violence was instead reduced to meme fodder and crude jokes.

The reaction has been as swift as it has been disturbing: mockery, laughter, judgment, and the ever familiar chorus of

“That’s what he gets for marrying his teacher.”And just like that, a moment that should have highlighted a very real issue, domestic violence against men, was drowned in ridicule. No hashtags. No public outcry.

No feminist organizations stepping forward. No nonprofit issuing a statement. Just silence. Deafening silence.Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim.

If the roles were reversed, if President Macron had slapped or pushed Brigitte Macron, there would be protests.

There would be hashtags. There would be fire and fury from advocacy groups.

The world would come to a standstill demanding accountability and protection for women, and rightly so.

But when it is a man, a world leader no less, experiencing what can only be described as a moment of public humiliation and physical aggression, the same voices fall silent.

Why? Because society has normalized the idea that men are too strong to be victims.

That their pain is comical. That their abuse is somehow deserved. And so, they suffer not just in silence but in isolation and shame.

President Macron has long been the subject of public scrutiny because of his marriage.

This age gap, had the roles been reversed, would be celebrated as empowerment or love defying the odds. But for him, it is used as a weapon to justify abuse.

And now, when a moment of violence occurs, it is brushed off with a laugh, as if his choices have made him unworthy of dignity or protection.

This is the very heart of the crisis.

Men continue to die in silence because the world refuses to see them as victims. They are mocked when they cry out. They are told to “man up” when they break down.

They are dismissed when they seek help. This stigma is not only cruel; it is deadly. Because behind the jokes are real men, fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, who endure violence every day with no one to fight for them, no one to believe them, and no safe space to heal.

Domestic violence affects men in ways that are deeply traumatic but rarely acknowledged.

Male victims often experience depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation.

They are less likely to report abuse due to fear of not being believed or being seen as weak.

Many have nowhere to go. There are far fewer shelters for men, far fewer support systems, and almost no targeted campaigns offering help.

Men are suffering, and they are doing so alone.We need more men’s initiatives, more safe houses, more trained professionals who understand the psychological and emotional toll of abuse on men.

We need funding for shelters that serve male survivors, just as we fund shelters for women. These are not competing needs.

They are shared needs. Human needs.Mainstream media must rise above the culture of mockery and begin to treat violence against men as the serious issue it is.

This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines.

They should become urgent stories, stories that call us to confront our biases and open our eyes to the full scope of domestic abuse.

Governments also have a role to play. Policy must reflect the reality that domestic violence affects all genders.

This is not a laughing matter. When men are assaulted, their experiences should not become viral punchlines

Funding for prevention, shelters, legal aid, and trauma support should be inclusive.

It is unjust to pour millions into protecting women while completely overlooking the pain of men.

Protection should never be selective. Support should never be conditional.

If a government truly cares about the safety and mental health of its citizens, then male victims of abuse must be seen, heard, and supported with the same energy and investment.

President Macron’s case was domestic violence on full display, and it is not acceptable.

The world watched it happen. And the world laughed.

But one day, maybe not today, we must ask ourselves what kind of society we are building, one where men’s suffering is the punchline, or one where every victim matters.

It is time we stop treating abuse as a gendered issue and start treating it as a human one.

Because until we do, men will keep dying in silence, while the world keeps laughing.

Halima Layeni Men’s Mental Health Advocate Executive Director Life After Abuse Foundation

halimalayeni@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Trending