Opinions
FAAC Allocation Suspension To Rivers: A FHC Ruling that Misses The Mark
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 According to Section 120(2)-(3) of the Nigerian Constitution, funds can only be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund based on an Appropriation Law approved by the State House of Assembly.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
Opinions
Am I A Thief?
Sometimes, we think being a thief is only about taking what is not ours in obvious ways.
One of our Sudanese brothers once shared a deeply touching story titled “Am I a Thief?”—and honestly, it’s not just a story… it’s a mirror to the soul.
He spoke of two moments that seemed small on the surface, yet carried profound weight.
He had traveled to Ireland for a medical exam. The fee was £309, but without change, he paid £310. It felt insignificant—just £1 extra. He completed his exams and eventually returned to Sudan, probably never thinking about it again.
But then… a letter arrived.
Inside was a check for £1, with a message that pierced deeper than the money itself:
“You made a mistake when paying your exam fees. The fee was £309, but you paid £310. This is your £1… we do not take more than what is rightfully ours.”
Pause for a moment and let that sink in…
The envelope, the stamp, the process—it all costs more than £1. Yet, integrity was not measured by cost, but by principle.
It wasn’t about the money. It was about doing what is right… even when no one is watching, even when it doesn’t “make sense.”
The second moment:
On his daily route between college and home, he would stop by a small grocery shop run by a woman and buy chocolate for 18 pence.
One day, he noticed something different. The same chocolate—same size, same quality—but now there were two prices: 18 pence and 20 pence.
Curious, he asked why.
She calmly explained:
“There were issues in Nigeria, where we get cocoa. Prices have gone up. The new stock is 20 pence, but the old one remains 18.”
He thought logically, like many of us would:
“Then people will only buy the 18 until it finishes, before moving to 20.”
She nodded, “Yes, I know.”
So he suggested what seemed like a “smart” solution:
“Why not mix them together and sell everything at 20? No one will know the difference.”
She leaned closer… lowered her voice… and asked a question that struck like lightning:
“Are you a thief??”
He was stunned. Speechless.
He walked away—but that question followed him… echoed within him… refused to let him go:
“Am I a thief??!!”
Sometimes, we think being a thief is only about taking what is not ours in obvious ways.
But this story challenges something deeper.
It asks:
What do we do with the little things?
The unnoticed moments?
The quiet opportunities to bend the truth… just a little?
Because integrity is not proven in grand gestures.
It is revealed in the smallest decisions—when profit is possible, when shortcuts are easy, when no one would ever know.
And perhaps the real question is not what others call us…but what our conscience whispers when we are alone.
Opinions
Democracy Still Struggling 33 Years After June 12, PDP Laments by Comrade Ini Ememobong
As Nigerians commemorate Democracy Day, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has declared that three decades after the historic June 12, 1993 presidential election, democracy remains under severe threat in the country.
In a strongly worded press statement issued on Thursday, the PDP paid tribute to the freest and fairest election in Nigeria’s history and the sacrifices made by citizens who defended the people’s mandate.

The party recalled the remarkable enthusiasm displayed by Nigerians during the 1993 polls, when citizens transcended ethnic and religious fault lines to vote for national progress.
The statement, signed by Comrade Ini Ememobong, National Publicity Secretary of the PDP Interim National Working Committee, noted that undemocratic forces aborted the popular will, triggering a prolonged resistance that claimed many lives.
“Thirty-three years later, the lessons of June 12 ring out more resoundingly than ever,” the PDP said, urging the Federal Government to uphold democratic principles, guarantee civil rights including the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and protect the rights of the opposition.
The party also reminded the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of its sacred duty to conduct elections with “transparent impartiality and unimpeachable fairness,” describing these as minimum standards rather than mere aspirations.
However, the PDP expressed deep disappointment over what it described as the current administration’s failure to learn from history.
“Reality check, however, provides damning evidence that under this APC-led Federal Government, the lessons of June 12 remain painfully unlearnt,” the statement read. “Today, of all days — a day set aside to honour the blood of democratic martyrs — peaceful protesters were teargassed and assaulted in Abuja.”
The party highlighted the case of activist Omoleye Sowore, who was reportedly injured and hospitalised while demanding the immediate release of schoolchildren and teachers held hostage in different parts of the country.
The PDP accused the Tinubu administration of prioritising “optics over action, propaganda over policy,” and living in “a dangerous utopian self-delusion,” thereby reducing Democracy Day to a mere historic remembrance instead of a celebration of democratic consolidation.
Looking ahead to the 2027 general elections, the opposition party called on all citizens to remain vigilant and unrelenting in their demand for genuine democratic consolidation.
“The sacrifices of the past must not be reduced to ceremonial memory. They must be active warnings that this country must never again travel the path of state-engineered anti-democratic actions,” the PDP warned.
Comrade Ini Ememobong, mnipr is the National Publicity Secretary, Interim National Working Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party.
Opinions
Nigeria Cannot Build Flood Resilience While Destroying Its Wetlands
The next 10 to 20 years are likely to bring even more dangerous combinations of intense rainfall, river flooding, urban flooding, and coastal flooding/erosion.
By DrJoseph Onoja
Every rainy season in Nigeria now arrives with a familiar sense of anxiety. Roads disappear beneath floodwaters, homes are submerged, businesses are disrupted, and lives are displaced.
What was once considered a seasonal inconvenience has become a recurring national emergency.
But Nigeria’s flooding crisis is no longer simply about rain.It is the result of a dangerous collision between climate change, environmental degradation, and weak urban planning.
Climate change is intensifying rainfall patterns across Africa, but human activities like deforestation, wetland destruction, poor drainage systems, and uncontrolled development on floodplains are multiplying the scale of destruction.
The uncomfortable truth is this: flooding in Nigeria is becoming structural.
Climate change may trigger the rainfall, but environmental degradation determines whether rain becomes disaster.
Climate Change Is Intensifying the Risk
Scientific evidence continues to show that extreme rainfall events are becoming more intense across Africa.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), both the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events are projected to increase as global warming accelerates.
In cities like Lagos, the impacts are already visible. Urban flooding has become more widespread, with both short-duration high-intensity rainfall and prolonged rainfall events increasing flood risks.
However, climate change alone does not explain the scale of devastation we are witnessing.
Ordinarily, heavy rainfall should not automatically become a disaster.
Healthy wetlands, functional drainage systems, protected floodplains, and well-planned urban infrastructure are designed to absorb and manage excess water.
” In Lagos, this issue is particularly critical. Water bodies, lagoons, creeks, and wetlands cover more than 62% of the state’s land area, while another significant portion remains seasonally flood prone.”
But when these natural and engineered systems fail or are deliberately compromised, communities become increasingly vulnerable.Nigeria’s flood challenge is therefore not only a climate issue. It is also a planning and governance issue.
Nigeria Is Destroying Its Natural Flood Defences
One of the most overlooked aspects of flood resilience in Nigeria is the role of nature itself.
Forests, wetlands, mangroves, and floodplains act as natural flood buffers. They absorb excess water, slow runoff, reduce erosion, and minimize flood peaks.
In many ways, they function as invisible infrastructure protecting communities from disaster.
Yet across Nigeria, these ecosystems are being degraded at alarming rates.
Deforestation reduces the soil’s ability to absorb water, increasing surface runoff and erosion. Sediments washed into drainage systems reduce their capacity and worsen urban flooding.
At the same time, wetlands and floodplains are increasingly being sandfilled and converted for construction and urban expansion.
The irony is embedded in the name itself: floodplains exist to absorb floods.
In Lagos, this issue is particularly critical. Water bodies, lagoons, creeks, and wetlands cover more than 62% of the state’s land area, while another significant portion remains seasonally flood prone.
When these ecosystems are filled, degraded, or built over, floodwater has fewer places to disperse safely. Instead, it ends up in homes, roads, and communities.
Wetlands are not vacant land waiting for development; they are natural infrastructure protecting cities from collapse.
The implications are enormous. Sensitive ecological areas such as the Lekki Conservation Centre continue to serve as natural buffers by receiving, retaining, and absorbing water from surrounding environments.
If such ecological buffers are lost to uncontrolled development, entire communities become significantly more exposed to flooding risks with attendant consequences for human health, livelihoods, wellbeing, infrastructure, and property.
Nigeria’s Adaptation Gap Is Growing
Nigeria is not standing completely still. There are signs of progress.
The Lagos Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan identify dozens of adaptation projects and estimates financing needs between US$9 billion and US$16 billion by 2035.
This reflects increasing recognition that climate resilience must become a development priority.
But adaptation efforts are still not keeping pace with the speed of urban growth and climate risk.
Rapid urbanization, inadequate drainage systems, weak urban governance, and insufficient climate-resilient infrastructure continue to increase exposure across many Nigerian cities.
The next 10 to 20 years are likely to bring even more dangerous combinations of intense rainfall, river flooding, urban flooding, and coastal flooding/erosion.
Sea level rise will further worsen risks in low-lying coastal cities, especially Lagos.
Without urgent intervention, the economic, social, and environmental costs will continue to rise.
The cost of protecting ecosystems today is far lower than the cost of rebuilding cities tomorrow.
Nature-Based Solutions Must Become National Policy
Nigeria cannot engineer its way out of this crisis through concrete alone. Flood resilience requires a combination of infrastructure investment and ecological protection.
Nature-based solutions must become central to national and subnational climate adaptation strategies.
This means:
- • Protecting and restoring forests, wetlands, mangroves, and floodplains
• Strengthening drainage and storm water systems
• Enforcing risk-sensitive urban planning regulations
• Preventing development on ecologically sensitive areas
• Improving solid waste management to prevent blocked drainage systems
• Investing in low-carbon and climate-resilient growth pathways.
These actions are not optional environmental luxuries. They are essential investments in public safety, economic stability, and national resilience.
The future of flood resilience in Nigeria will depend as much on ecological protection as on engineering.
A Defining Choice for Nigeria
Floods are no longer isolated disasters. They are warning signs. They reveal the growing consequences of ignoring environmental limits while cities expand faster than resilience systems can keep pace.
They expose the cost of treating ecosystems as expendable rather than essential.
Nigeria still has a choice. We can continue reacting to flood disasters after they occur, or we can invest in prevention, resilience, and nature-based infrastructure before the next crisis arrives.
Protecting Forests, wetlands, restoring degraded ecosystems, and strengthening climate adaptation systems are not simply environmental priorities.
They are national development imperatives.The future resilience of Nigeria’s cities may well depend on how seriously we take them today.
• Dr Joseph Onoja , a conservation scientist, is the Director – General of the Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF).
-
News1 day agoBIJAMIC College Charges Class of 2026 Graduates to Embrace Resilience, Learn from Thomas Edison
-
Sports2 days agoWho made the FIFA World Cup trophy?
-
News2 days agoSenegal President, Faye elected new ECOWAS chairman
-
Sports2 days agoFIFA To Review Hydration Breaks After World Cup Final – Wenger
-
Crime2 days agoStudents Killed as Troops Foil ISWAP Abduction Bid in Borno
-
News2 days agoBadejo-Okusanya Emerges NBA National President (2026-2028)
-
News1 day agoAbbas inaugurating today committee to investigate illegal PFIPC agency
-
Sports2 days agoBurna Boy shines in first-ever World Cup Halftime Show
