Rivers Crisis: Defection Case Transferred to New Judge

Wike Vs. Fubara

The cases challenging the defection of 25 Pro-Wike Rivers State Assembly lawmakers from the People's Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) have been transferred to a new judge. According to Vanguard, the cases were transferred from Federal High Court 4, Port Harcourt, presided over by Justice Steven Dalyop Pam, to Court 2, controlled by Justice E. O. Obele.

However, there was confusion among journalists covering the court proceedings and some lawyers in the matter when they arrived at the court on Friday morning to discover that the cases had been transferred to a different court. The lawyers and journalists who gathered at Court 4 were left stranded for over an hour before approaching the court clerk, who informed them that the matters had been moved to the new court on Thursday.

The transfer came after a petition by defendant Hon. Martins Amaewhule to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Tsoho, requesting that the cases against him be transferred to another court. The cases include one instituted by BOOT Party and others as plaintiffs (Suit No. FHC/PHC/269/2024) and another by a Civil Society Organization in the state against Amaewhule and others, all related to the defendants' defection to the APC.

On Monday, when the court resumed for hearing, the court was confronted with a petition signed by Martin Amaewhule, addressed to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Tsoho, seeking to reassign the case to another court. The Presiding Judge, Justice Steven Dalyop Pam, read the petition in open court and noted that the petitioner was praying for the CJ to stop the hearing process.

Counsel for the plaintiff, BOOT Party, Mr. Reuben Wanogho, informed the court that the petition aimed to arrest the ongoing case and urged the court to dis-countenance it. However, Counsel for the 1st to 25th Defendants, Ferdinand Orbi (SAN), denied knowledge of the petition by his client and prayed the court to adhere to the petition and stop further proceedings.

In his ruling, the presiding judge, Pam, noted that the petitioner had no motion or counter affidavit before him and was not yet a known party in the case. Pam ruled that the petitioner had not copied his petition to the plaintiffs and that the court would have no option but to dis-countenance the petition and proceed with hearing the motions for joinder.