Stakeholders in the state have hailed the Rivers State High Court (Amendment Law 2014) as proposed by the State House of Assembly.
At a public hearing held last Wednesday at the Ministry of Justice Auditorium, Port Harcourt, the stakeholders made up of  lawyers, traditional rulers and politicians, submitted that the amendment had become necessary to salvage the judiciary and move the state forward .
They lamented that justice administration and adjudication has suffered in the past months over the politicization of the judiciary in the state.
The bill sought  to amend the Rivers State High Court  Law of 2001. Section 40 of the principal law was amended to have a new sub-section 2 which reads thus, “ Where the office of the Chief Judge is vacant and it is impracticable to appoint an acting Chief Judge or a Chief Judge, the Chief Registrar shall assign cases to any judge and perform other administrative duties until an acting Chief Judge or a Chief Judge is appointed”.
The law sought  to fill the  void created by the logjam over the appointment of Justice Peter Agumagu, even when the court had ruled that such powers reside in the governor.
Making submissions on the bill, Senator representing Rivers South-East in the National Assembly, Magnus Abe,  pointed out that all  extra appendages attached should be expunged.
For him, the conditions should be explicit to avert legal knots in the future.
Also speaking, member of the National Assembly representing Andoni, Opobo/Nkoro Federal Constituency, Hon. Dakuku Peterside submitted that the amendment had become necessary since the society is dynamic.
“ The constitution envisages a situation where laws can be made and amended “, he said.
He pledged the support of members of the National Assembly to  the new bill, while adding, “ the bigger picture of what we are doing here today is for the administration of justice…We totally  agree with amendments proposed and we cannot continue to obstruct the administration of justice, and if we don’t do it, our people will suffer.”
He went on to argue that “ the core reason is because there is intent to create mischief by some judicial institutions”.
A legal practitioner, Udu Eyiba had earlier commended the vision of the  House of Assembly for coming to the rescue, adding that laws are for man and not man for law. “
He further pledged the support of lawyers to the bill, saying it was timely.
A traditional ruler, Chief Vincent Chuku said the amendment had long been awaited, emphasizing that the absence of a Chief Judge could lead to a break down of law and order.
A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress(APC) and former House of Representatives member, Igo Aguma, in his opinion, said the bill and the action of the House shows that democracy was growing.
He argued that the doctrine of separation of powers provides for each arm to intervene during a logjam.
“What is going on now in Rivers State is healthy…It will enhance our democratic culture, but while that is going on, the business of the ordinary man should not suffer,” he said.
Aguma maintained that the law is what is needed now to stabilize the state, and flayed the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which has supported the call for an administrative judge as recommended by the National Judicial Council(NJC).
Similarly, Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Worgu Boms had welcomed the amendment, arguing that citizens cannot continue to suffer in accessing justice while the crisis continues.
Boms stressed that, ‘ the hiatus in the judiciary cannot continue. We have a Chief Judge who has been illegally suspended.
“In the case where the situation becomes difficult, ‘’ he observed, the amendment becomes necessary to enable lawyers and judges carry out their duties.
He added, ” the assignment of cases is not a judicial function but rather administrative”.
Speaking earlier, Deputy Speaker, House of Assembly,  Leyii Kwanee who represented the Speaker, said the House was rising to its duty to salvage the judiciary, and expressed hope that the inputs will go a long way to make the law effective.
Explaining why the House was embarking on the amendment, Chairman House Committee on Judiciary, Barrister Golden Chioma held that since the law was made by the House, it was only the House that can amend it and not the National Assembly as claimed in some quarters.
He further stated that the public hearing is to “add flesh” to the amendment by getting the views of the public on the bill.