Falana Fires Back at Wike: “I Did Not Lie to the Supreme Court”
Prominent human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has responded to accusations by former Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, that he misled the Supreme Court over the ongoing leadership tussle within the Rivers State House of Assembly.
In a recent interview on Channels Television’s Politics Today, Falana dismissed the claims, stating categorically, “I did not lie to the Supreme Court.” He explained that the matter in question the legitimacy of the Rivers Assembly leadership and the passage of the 2024 state budget was not ruled upon by the court because the appeal filed by Governor Siminalayi Fubara was voluntarily withdrawn.
“The Supreme Court did not determine who is the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
“The appeal was withdrawn by the governor’s legal team because the budget in question had already been passed into law, making the issue academic,” Falana explained.
The legal luminary clarified that his comments on the case were based on public records and the proceedings of the court, not personal opinions or partisan bias. He maintained that his interpretation of the situation was rooted in the facts and the law.
Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), had earlier criticized Falana, alleging that the senior advocate had misrepresented the Supreme Court’s stance in public discourse. The comment has sparked political tension and further fueled debate over the true status of the Rivers State legislature, which remains embroiled in a bitter split between factions loyal to Wike and Governor Fubara.
Falana urged political actors to focus on constitutional governance and respect the independence of judicial decisions. He also emphasized the importance of legal accuracy in public commentary, especially on matters as sensitive as legislative legitimacy.
As the political crisis in Rivers continues to evolve, the public looks to both legal experts and political leaders for clarity and stability. Falana’s rebuttal may be seen as an attempt to reclaim the narrative and remind observers of the role the courts actually played or did not play in the unfolding drama.
