 River State Governor, Yusamuike, has hailed the federal high court in Abuja for its judgment on Wednesday. The judgment by the federal government from the Doctrine Funds, from the federation account to fund the Nigerian police force, and other agencies not listed in the constitution. Governor Muike spoke to a journalist shortly after returning from Germany. There he undertook a tour of the River State government's legacy 600 plane that has been parked in the European country for 10 years. He described the judgment by Justice Ahmed Mohamed as a victory for democracy. And we are now being joined live by former second vice president of the Nigerian Bar Association, Dr. Munde Ubani. Mr. Ubani, good evening. Yes, thank you for having me. Good evening. Well, how do you respond to the judgment by the court? The governor of River State, I think I will also respond in the positive angle, that it is clearly a good development for Nigeria, especially when we say we're operating around a system of governance. You know, the constitution has made a liberal position as to revenue sharing. Now, if any money enters into federation accounts, it must be a proper sharing of that money that belongs to other tiers of government. We have the state, we have the local government. The federal government will not, under the constitution, have any right to unilaterally make any expenses from that account without recalls to other federation units. If it does that, that clearly is unconstitutional. It is actually what the court has said today in regards to that particular deduction that was made, which was made for the police and then made for some other agencies without taking into cognizant the right of the other federation units. If it was unconstitutional and not contained in the constitution, why the move by the federal government in the first place? Why do people transgress against the law? People sometimes may not know that what they are doing is wrong, that they are being called to other, or they know that what they are doing is wrong, that they don't care. They treat every other person with levity and impunity, believing that they are pure mighty, they are very powerful, and they can get away with it, you know. We have always insisted that those who are courageous and those who are not should be able to challenge some of the actions of the government. That's why some of us in the public interest group have been doing that over time. There are many cases I have against this argument. One on police, one on illegal roadblock, one on e-concursory vaccination, and then of course the one I just want to do against ESCC. When they defend me legally, I got a judgment for 12 million today. So we must be bold enough to challenge some of these actions or else they'll begin to treat us with impunity and levity. Well, that ruling says that since it's only a reverse state that took the matter to court, only that state is going to get the benefit of refund. Do you see other states being inspired to go to court as well? I don't know whether other states joined. They did not join, but they did not join. Do you see them being motivated now to do that? In the case, they cannot be beneficiary. Because other than the only reverse government money should be refunded. We didn't say that obvious money should be refunded on legal states. That's what I'm saying. Do you see the court may declare that since it's only reverse state that instituted the case, only reverse state can benefit from that? I'm saying do you see this ruling inspiring other states into going, you know, suing the federal government? Oh yes, they may be interested because they are put the way. What reverse state has done is to clear the way and then aspect the precedent. You know, so any other state that is actually interested who felt aggrieved by that action of the federal government literally withdrawing money that belongs to them and paying to some of the agencies and others can also proceed and then cite this particular case that has not been decided by the Supreme Court. You see, it has become the precedent. What's your take on the establishment of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund in the first place? What is my comment on what? Yeah, what's your take on it? How do you view the establishment of the Nigeria Police Trust Fund in the first place? The establishment, I don't see anything wrong in establishing a police trust fund if it passes through the normal legal process. I believe me. I'm listening. The legal process must make provision as to the funding. Is it going to be funded by the federal government or is it going to be funded by the state? Or is it going to be funded jointly? The law must be very clear as to that. And then what is the mode of appropriation? How do you appropriate the money for the trust fund? There's nothing wrong in doing the first place, establishing trust funds. For the sake of increasing, the sake of welfare of Nigerian police force and making sure that they have enough equipment to work with. But the law must be specific as to the way of funding it. Is it going to be funded by the federal government or by both the state and federal? So is it that it's a lagoon in the provision of the law that they publish that trust fund? That state is going to be funded only by federal government. The federal government has no right to mount Tampa with the money out of the state. Because what money goes into the petition account must be publicly shared before you begin to take it. I don't think they did the right thing. That was why the previous state government went to court. If they have done it in a manner that was in accordance with the constitution and the law, I don't think that it would have won the case. But let me say this. What was decided is still at the lower courts, federal high courts. From the talent that is caught of appeal, and they may be going to die out of the Supreme Court. So I don't think that this is the final rule we have about this case. The federal government will want to go on appeal. Indeed. Obviously, there's no love lost between the FG and the reverse state governor Mweke. Healthy for Nigeria's democracy, you'd say. The point is that there's no other way for us to advance our democracy if not by going to court or anyone that is agreed. I mean, we don't encourage people to use their guns or to carry their marches in order to set those calls. And so it is clearly a healthy development. And I'm presently starting doing a PhD program on the issue of public interest cases to organize governance. You know, going to court, you know, using judicial decisions to correct some of the anomalies in our system. The federal structure of Nigeria is completely flawed. And we are saying that we should restructure Nigeria. But if the federal government does not want to do this by way of action laws in order to restructure Nigeria, maybe through judicial pronouncement, we may begin to, you know, get Nigeria right. You know, in the proper form and structure that can really engender development. You know, that is what I think is going in this direction, you know. So going to court may be another round, you know, towards reorganizing the structure of Nigeria that is completely flawed. Oh, thank you, Barista. Dr. Barista Mande Ubani, former second vice president of the Nigerian Bar Association. Thank you so much for your time. Yes, unfortunately the chairman, the chairman of the section of Public Interest and Development Law, I call speed up. Well, thanks for letting us know. Congratulations. Thank you very much for having me. Good night. Good night.