Court of Appeal’s Special Panel for Rivers Crisis—Wike’s Influence and Public Perception Undermine Credibility; An Impartial INEC Needed, by John Egbeazien Oshodi

Good Moves by Court of Appeal President Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem—Special Panel for Rivers Crisis, Yet Public Perception and Wike’s Influence Render These Moves Laughable; An Impartial INEC is What’s Needed

In response to the escalating political crisis in Rivers State, Court of Appeal President Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem has formed a three-member special panel to address appeals focused on the legitimacy of actions taken after 27 lawmakers defected from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The creation of this panel underscores the Court’s recognition of the situation’s complexity and high stakes, as these defections have left a considerable number of constituencies unrepresented, compromising the Assembly’s constitutional integrity. However, despite the panel’s stated aim to expedite a fair resolution, its formation brings immediate ethical concerns to light. Public perception and Wike’s influential presence have cast doubt on the judiciary’s impartiality, challenging the Court’s integrity and amplifying skepticism about whether justice can be genuinely served.

The judiciary’s involvement in this case highlights ethical concerns regarding its alignment with political factions, particularly given Wike’s influence. As a former governor of Rivers State and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Wike holds a unique position of power that extends beyond state politics, resonating at both regional and national levels. This power is visible in the conflict’s development and the judiciary’s role within it, as some fear that Wike’s presence may be enough to sway judicial outcomes subtly. The fact that the Court of Appeal has moved forward in establishing this panel—under circumstances where neutrality is especially fragile—could mean that any ruling perceived as favoring Wike’s interests will immediately fall under suspicion, tainting the judiciary’s role and fueling the perception of partiality. In an environment already sensitive to issues of political favoritism, the panel’s mission to bring “expedited justice” risks being overshadowed by doubts about whether the judiciary has been co-opted.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s power struggle with Wike has destabilized the political landscape of Rivers State in ways that reach far beyond a mere clash between former allies. It has embroiled the state’s entire governance structure in uncertainty, as competing factions align and the Assembly itself becomes a battleground for control. The crisis illustrates how personal political conflicts can erode governance at every level, impacting the socio-economic stability of the state and deepening the challenges of leadership in a system where institutional integrity is already in question. As a result, the judiciary’s neutrality is essential not only in resolving the specific legal questions surrounding the defection of lawmakers but also in symbolizing an impartial authority in a fractured political environment. Without a clear and unbiased resolution, this judicial intervention could exacerbate Rivers’ political instability, undermining its role as a mediator and diminishing its authority as a constitutional safeguard.

The mass defection of 27 lawmakers from the PDP to the APC is a turning point in this conflict, marking a decisive shift that has left Rivers State’s legislative body with only four active members. This number fails to meet the quorum requirements set forth in Section 96 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which mandates that at least one-third of members must be present for any legislative action to proceed. By continuing to hold sessions under these circumstances, the Assembly undermines not only its own legitimacy but also public trust in the processes that underpin democratic governance. The legislature, in essence, has become a symbolic structure operating on the fringes of constitutional legality, serving as a reminder of how political conflicts can strip democratic institutions of their efficacy and legitimacy. This situation, more than just a question of numbers, underscores the deep dysfunction within the Assembly, a dysfunction that now requires judicial interpretation to determine whether an assembly lacking basic quorum can be allowed to function at all.

The ramifications of this crisis extend beyond Rivers State, touching on foundational issues within Nigeria’s political and legislative framework. Defection in Nigeria’s legislature has long been a contentious issue, with lawmakers frequently exploiting legal loopholes to switch allegiances without consequence. This crisis in Rivers highlights the need for stricter regulations, such as automatic seat forfeiture for defectors, a measure that would mitigate politically motivated instability. By allowing defectors to remain in office until judicial intervention, the system effectively endorses a culture of opportunistic politics, where allegiance shifts not based on ideology but on immediate advantage. This pattern has eroded the public’s confidence in the legislature and has now implicated the judiciary, which is forced to step in to impose boundaries that should ideally be enforced through political reform. As calls for stricter guidelines grow louder, the judiciary’s rulings on these matters may set important precedents, establishing the judiciary as both a mediator and a regulator in a system that otherwise tolerates political maneuvering at the cost of institutional stability.

Activist Omoyele Sowore’s allegations against Wike introduce another layer of complexity to this case, bringing judicial impartiality into sharper focus. Sowore has accused Wike of wielding considerable influence over Nigeria’s judicial processes, branding him the “Golden Boy of the Judiciary,” a title that, if believed, implies a troubling level of judicial subservience to political power. Sowore’s claims are particularly pointed, suggesting that Wike’s influence is not merely indirect but intentional and far-reaching, capable of steering judicial outcomes in his favor. This accusation gains weight in the context of recent events, such as Wike’s presentation of a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) to Justice Dongban-Mensem. While this act might be an administrative formality, it raises questions about the symbolic gestures that might cultivate loyalty within the judiciary. As these high-profile cases proceed, this relationship will inevitably cast a shadow over any rulings that appear to align with Wike’s interests, placing the judiciary under intense public scrutiny and further straining its credibility.

The recent appointment of Wike’s wife, Eberechi Wike, to the Court of Appeal is another factor amplifying public skepticism. While her qualifications and procedural compliance are not in question, her elevation occurs at a moment when her husband’s political interests are highly entangled with judicial outcomes. The timing and optics of her position could be perceived as enabling Wike’s influence within the judiciary, creating potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that her presence on the court introduces a direct familial link to the appeals process, a situation that is highly unusual in a case with such stark political dimensions. This connection may leave the public questioning whether judgments issued by a court in which Wike has familial ties can truly be viewed as impartial. In the broader context of a judicial system that is already under siege by allegations of favoritism, Eberechi Wike’s appointment to the Court of Appeal could reinforce perceptions that the judiciary is a political instrument rather than an independent authority.

If Justice Dongban-Mensem is truly committed to judicial impartiality, she faces a monumental choice—one that demands far more than a straightforward interpretation of the facts. She must confront the profound perception of bias that surrounds the appeals court’s current role, acknowledging the suspicions that many hold about the court’s alignment with Wike’s interests. Public sentiment is skeptical, as symbolic gestures and procedural decisions increasingly cast the court as a possible ally to Wike’s agenda. In this climate, transparency and a strict adherence to constitutional principles are not just ideals but imperatives. Justice Dongban-Mensem’s own reputation and commitment to the rule of law are as much on trial as the cases themselves. To mitigate this crisis of confidence, her actions must demonstrate an unwavering dedication to fairness and justice, or risk cementing the court’s image as a politically compromised institution.

Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) carries an equally critical responsibility, as its prolonged inaction has directly intensified this political and legal standoff. By failing to address the urgent need for by-elections in the Rivers Assembly, INEC has inadvertently pushed the judiciary into a role it should never have had to assume. INEC’s lack of response has not only left significant constituencies unrepresented, weakening the democratic process, but also fueled doubts about its own neutrality. This hesitation on INEC’s part calls into question its commitment to upholding democratic principles. If INEC continues to neglect its duty, it risks undermining Nigeria’s democratic foundation, as public trust in the electoral process falters at a fundamental level.

Even if Justice Dongban-Mensem seeks to act with the utmost integrity, the perception of impartiality has been eroded by the broader political realities. The real battle is not confined to courtrooms; it is a larger, relentless struggle between Wike, a former governor determined to safeguard his political “structure” within Rivers State, and the newly elected governor, who, alongside an increasingly vocal public, resists Wike’s continued influence. Wike’s own declarations about preserving his political foothold only serve to amplify the suspicion that the judiciary could be manipulated to serve his ambitions. This battle for control over the political landscape has made the judiciary a crucial arena, where each decision, however sound in its legal rationale, is viewed within the context of Wike’s quest to maintain his grip on the state.

Through his influence, Wike’s reach has extended into the judiciary itself, particularly with the recent appointment of his wife, Eberechi Wike, to the Court of Appeal. This familial connection deepens the perception that Wike’s influence now flows directly within the judicial system, potentially affecting cases where his political interests are at stake. Additionally, Wike’s ceremonial presentation of a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) to Justice Dongban-Mensem adds fuel to this perception, with many viewing it as more than a mere administrative gesture. Activist Omoyele Sowore’s characterization of Wike as the “Golden Boy of the Judiciary” resonates widely, encapsulating public suspicion that Wike’s influence may be entrenched within the very structures meant to uphold justice.

These associations create an immense challenge for Justice Dongban-Mensem, as they paint a troubling picture that the judiciary is susceptible to Wike’s ambitions. Even with the best intentions, it is nearly impossible to dismiss the optics of favoritism, which cast a long shadow over the Court of Appeal’s proceedings. Each connection, symbolic or real, blurs the lines between judicial independence and political influence. For Justice Dongban-Mensem and the Court of Appeal, the stakes are not only about delivering legal resolutions but also about restoring public faith in the judiciary, distancing it from any perception that it might serve as a tool for Wike’s political maneuvers.

The Rivers State Assembly, now reduced to just three or four members who have remained loyal, has taken a strong stance against the defectors, threatening legal action to block what it considers illegitimate legislative activities by those who switched parties. Citing Section 99 of the Constitution, the Assembly argues that by defecting to the APC, the 25 to 27 lawmakers have compromised the Assembly’s integrity and thus forfeited their right to serve. This firm response is not only a defense of the Assembly’s authority amid intense political infighting but also an attempt to restore control over a body now rendered almost powerless. By calling for punitive measures against the defectors, the Assembly aims to reestablish order and reassure the electorate that it remains committed to its constitutional role, even amid external pressures from influential political figures.

Adding to this crisis is the prolonged inaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in conducting by-elections to fill these vacant seats, despite the Assembly’s repeated requests dating back to December 2023. Assembly leaders have voiced frustration over INEC’s delay, emphasizing that the commission’s inaction has left crucial constituencies without representation and has essentially stalled legislative functions. INEC’s failure to act has exacerbated the Assembly’s difficulties, creating a political vacuum that has placed decision-making on hold and left citizens without proper representation. Critics contend that this silence raises doubts about INEC’s neutrality, as its inaction amid urgent appeals from the Assembly suggests it may be either complicit in or vulnerable to political pressures—an impression that undermines public trust in the electoral process. The Assembly’s repeated calls for by-elections underscore the urgent need for INEC to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, as a fully functioning legislature is essential to prevent governance paralysis and further socio-political instability in Rivers State.

INEC’s inaction places the judiciary in the difficult position of resolving issues that should ideally be settled by the electoral body. The Rivers Assembly’s reliance on judicial solutions highlights a systemic flaw, revealing the extent to which Nigeria’s political and administrative institutions defer to the judiciary for conflict resolution, especially when political pressures render them ineffective. In an environment where judicial rulings serve as proxies for administrative inaction, the Court of Appeal’s involvement goes beyond legal arbitration; it is effectively tasked with bridging the gaps left by INEC’s failure to act. However, this dynamic could erode the judiciary’s reputation, as its perceived overreach into electoral matters may create the impression that it is assuming powers beyond its mandate, a situation that poses long-term risks to the balance of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.

The Rivers Assembly’s legal threats against defectors also underscore the potential dangers of unchecked political maneuvering. The Assembly’s insistence on enforcing constitutional repercussions for defection is not only a matter of principle but also a demonstration of its resolve to preserve its authority amid a politically turbulent environment. The Assembly’s efforts to reassert control through legal means signal a readiness to confront those who challenge its legitimacy, serving as a warning against future defections and a reminder of the Assembly’s determination to uphold legislative integrity. However, with the Court of Appeal now positioned as a central player in resolving this standoff, the judiciary’s role has expanded from legal adjudication to enforcing legislative cohesion, a responsibility that highlights the critical but precarious nature of its involvement.

In conclusion, the special panel established by the Court of Appeal stands as both a judicial measure and a powerful test of Nigeria’s institutional strength. This case brings to light profound ethical challenges posed by political influence, administrative missteps, and entrenched public distrust, underscoring the gravity of the decisions before both the judiciary and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). To preserve its integrity, the judiciary must deliver rulings that rise above partisan alliances, adhering strictly to principles of fairness and justice. Meanwhile, INEC must fulfill its critical role by addressing electoral gaps through transparent and prompt by-elections, ensuring that democratic representation is upheld.

As both the judiciary and INEC navigate this crisis, each action will be dissected for alignment with democratic ideals. The Court of Appeal’s rulings are poised to carry long-term implications, shaping public perception of the judiciary’s independence and resilience. At the same time, INEC’s proactive measures—or lack thereof—will reveal whether Nigeria’s democratic institutions can withstand political pressures and function with autonomy and integrity amid deep political rifts.

Sowore’s stark accusations against Wike, dubbing him the “Golden Boy of the Judiciary,” have amplified public concerns over judicial impartiality and hinted at the possibility of judicial loyalty being manipulated for political gain. Wike’s symbolic gestures, like personally delivering a Certificate of Occupancy to Justice Dongban-Mensem, reinforce the perception that Nigeria’s judiciary could be entangled in networks of political influence. Such actions, far from administrative formalities, raise troubling questions about where loyalties lie within the judiciary, particularly in cases involving powerful political figures.

As the intense political conflict in Rivers State—one that traces back to Wike’s own political strategies—continues to unfold, the Court of Appeal’s involvement and the formation of a special panel remain contentious. Justice Dongban-Mensem, despite her intentions, now finds herself inextricably bound in Wike’s complex political web. Every gesture or ruling perceived to favor his interests further taints public perception, casting the court as a stage for his maneuvers rather than an arena of impartial justice.

Given the stakes, it may be most prudent to allow this matter to escalate directly to the Supreme Court, the only body with sufficient authority to resolve such a highly charged issue without the burden of perceived bias. A ruling from the Supreme Court could help restore legitimacy to the judicial process by distancing it from the web of political influence and ensuring that justice prevails over partisanship.

Furthermore, INEC’s involvement in the ongoing legislative issues in Rivers State is critical. As two competing assemblies undermine stability, INEC must step in to facilitate by-elections, restoring legitimate representation and helping to stabilize the Assembly’s fractured structure. In the meantime, the Court of Appeal and Justice Dongban-Mensem should consider withdrawing from this political firestorm, allowing INEC to manage the process and shielding the judiciary from further entanglement in politically fraught conflicts.

With the Court of Appeal already under scrutiny for recent rulings in Plateau State, where voided elections have spurred public outcry and accusations of inconsistency, the judiciary’s reputation hangs in the balance. Senior lawyers have even petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC) for sanctions against judges involved in these controversial decisions, warning that such rulings could erode public confidence and portray the Court of Appeal as a politically swayed institution rather than an impartial judicial body. This context only compounds existing doubts about the court’s credibility, making cases like those involving Wike’s influence in Rivers State particularly sensitive. Nevertheless, let us remain optimistic!

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University,  Weldios University and Walden University.