The apex court said by seeking for it to make Judicial pronouncement on a matter that the Court of Appeal has not even ruled on, the Bayelsa state government was liable for abuse of court processes.
Bayelsa state government had approached the Supreme Court after a Federal High Court in Abuja ordered it to refund the 13 percent derivation it had received over the years from disputed Soku oilfield, to Rivers State.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, Justice Ngwuta, who led a panel of 7 justices, wondered why the Bayelsa State government decided to file a suit at the apex court, whereas steps were being taken to challenge the judgement of the Federal High Court at the Court of Appeal.
According to the Special Assistant on Media to the Rivers State governor, Kelvin Ebiri, Justice Ngwuta observed that the Bayelsa state government was jumping the gun and its action was tantamount to abuse of court process, asserting that there was no way the Supreme Court can make pronouncement on a judgment that was given by a Federal High Court when the appellate court has not done so.
He explained that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction on a matter relating to a High Court, directing the Bayelsa state government to take its grievances to the Court of Appeal.
It was on the basis that the counsel to the Bayelsa state government, Kemsauode Wodu, applied for a formal withdrawal of the suit and it was struck out by the Supreme Court.
It woild be recalled that Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, while delivering judgement in Suit N0. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/19, filed by Attorney-General of Rivers State against the National Boundary Commission, based on documents from relevant government agencies, had declared that the Soku oilfields belong to Rivers State.
Ekwo had noted that the failure and refusal of the National Boundary Commission to rectify the admitted mistake in the 11th edition of the administrative map of Nigeria since 2002 which erroneously showed St Batholomew River instead of River Santa Barbara as the interstate Boundary between Rivers and Bayelsa States, was a breach of commission’s statutory duty and a flagrant disobedience of the order of the Supreme Court contained in its judgment delivered on 10th July 2012 in Suit Number SC.106/2009.
The judge explained that the continued reliance on the said defective 11th edition of the administrative map of Nigeria by the other government agencies/statutory bodies, particularly, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Accountant General of the Federation in the computation of revenue accruable to Rivers State from the Federation Account has resulted in the continued unjust denial of derivation funds accruing from the Soku oil wells situate within Rivers State to the detriment of the State Government.
Justice Ekwo then directed that notice be served of the decision of the Court on the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Accountant General of the Federation.
The judge said the National Boundary Commission cannot unilateral delineate boundaries between Rivers State and Bayelsa State after the Supreme Court judgment on the matter and also dismissed an objection to the suit raised by the National Boundary Commission because it lacked merit.
