Rivers Judiciary denies issuing order to halt inauguration of Service Commission members

Summary

• Judiciary labels reports of injunction against Sole Administrator as false and malicious
• No Rivers High Court judge, including Justice Onyiri, gave such an order, says Deputy Chief Registrar
• Public urged to disregard misinformation and rely on verified judicial sources
• Controversy persists amid legal dispute between suspended appointees and Sole Administrator Ibas

Port Harcourt, Nigeria – The Rivers State Judiciary has categorically denied reports that a High Court judge issued an injunction barring the Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), from inaugurating members of the State Services Commission. The rebuttal comes amid conflicting narratives in the media and online platforms surrounding an alleged court order restraining the inauguration of new commission members.

In a statement issued on Monday, 14 July 2025, Deputy Chief Registrar of the Rivers State High Court, Menenen Poromon, described the reports as “false, malicious, and completely unfounded.” The statement clarified that no such injunction had been granted by Justice Frank Onyiri, whose name was cited in the media, or any other judge of the Rivers State High Court.

“The public is hereby advised to disregard these claims and seek confirmation of any judicial orders through the office of the Chief Registrar,” the statement read. It emphasised the need for responsible reporting and urged the media and the public to verify judicial information before dissemination.

Conflicting claims over court injunction

The denial from the judiciary follows widespread reports that Justice Frank Onyiri had issued a restraining order in favour of Reverend Goodlife Iduoku Ben and other suspended members of the State Services Commission. The claimants, appointed under suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara and confirmed by the State House of Assembly, had reportedly approached the court to challenge their removal by Ibas, citing illegality.

According to these unverified reports, the court supposedly directed all parties to maintain the status quo and adjourned the matter to 29 September 2025 for judgment on the substantive suit.

However, the judiciary’s formal rebuttal disputes the existence of such a ruling, warning that misinformation is not only misleading but capable of undermining public trust in the justice system.

Online confusion and political undertones

The situation has been further muddled by conflicting accounts on social media, where several users either reiterated the supposed injunction or amplified the judiciary’s denial. The inconsistency has fuelled public speculation, with many expressing uncertainty over which version reflects the facts.

Legal observers note that the matter centres on a broader constitutional question: whether the Sole Administrator possesses the authority to suspend or replace officials duly appointed and confirmed through legislative procedures.

While the claimants assert the legitimacy of their appointments under Governor Fubara, critics of the previous administration maintain that Ibas acted within his mandate to reconstitute state agencies.

The judiciary has reiterated that until a court ruling is officially confirmed and published, no such injunction exists, and any assertions to the contrary should be treated as unsubstantiated.

Awaiting legal resolution

Despite the Judiciary’s denial, the core legal dispute remains unresolved. The matter, which questions the legality of Ibas’s authority to inaugurate new commission members, is reportedly before the court with a judgment expected on 29 September 2025.

In the meantime, the Rivers State Judiciary has called for calm and implored both the media and the public to refrain from circulating unverified legal claims, insisting that judicial integrity must be preserved above political interpretations.

As tensions persist in Rivers State’s political landscape, the Judiciary’s firm denial signals its intent to maintain impartiality and uphold the sanctity of due process.