In an interview with Arise TV, legal expert Chuks Uguru discussed his thoughts on the resignation of 27 lawmakers from the Rivers State House of Assembly. Uguru admitted that he had read the court ruling cover to cover, but he was unable to find a single sentence that supported the four members’ right to govern the assembly. He explicitly cited Section 96 of the Constitution, which stipulates that a quorum of the State House of Assembly shall consist of one-third of its total membership. This calls attention to the legislative process’s constitutional foundation.
Uguru expressed skepticism regarding considering four or five members sufficient for a quorum in a legislative body with over 30 members, deeming it unconventional. He asserted that, in his view, such a setup lacks constitutional justification, highlighting worries about compromising the constitutional integrity by allowing a minimal number of members to form a quorum in the legislative proceedings.
According to him, “I’m aware of the court order made by honourable justice Danagogo of the Rivers State High Court. I’ve gone through that order with the microscopic thoroughness of a scientist searching for an invisible jam, and I’m not able to see where the court gave its imprimatur of authority to four members of the House of Assembly to seat and legitimately transact the business of the house.
Furthermore, I am aware that by the majestic provision of the constitution in Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution, the forum of the state House of Assembly must be one-third of all the members.”