Why Rivers Chief Judge Declined to Constitute Impeachment Panel on Governor Fubara
Advertisements
The Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, has formally explained his refusal to constitute a seven-member judicial panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Nma Odu, amid an intensifying impeachment process at the Rivers State House of Assembly.
In a detailed written response to the Speaker of the House, Martin Amaewhule, the Chief Judge cited binding court orders and established principles of constitutional law as the basis for his decision, stressing that the judiciary is duty-bound to respect subsisting judicial directives regardless of political circumstances.
The explanation clarifies the legal stalemate that has emerged in Rivers State following the initiation of impeachment proceedings under Section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and underscores the role of the courts in regulating constitutional processes involving elected officials.
Advertisements
Background to the Impeachment Request
The Rivers State House of Assembly had, by formal correspondence dated January 16, requested the Chief Judge to exercise his constitutional responsibility under Section 188(5) of the Constitution by appointing a seven-member panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against the Governor and his deputy.
This request followed the commencement of impeachment proceedings by the Assembly, which alleged constitutional and administrative violations by the executive arm of government. Under Nigerian law, once a notice of allegations is issued and supported by the required number of lawmakers, the Chief Judge is mandated to constitute an independent panel to investigate the claims and submit its findings within a prescribed period.
Advertisements
Ejes Gist News reports that the Assembly’s request was part of a broader political crisis that has engulfed Rivers State, marked by sharp divisions within the legislature and a prolonged power struggle between the executive and legislative arms of government.
Legal Action by Governor and Deputy Governor
Before the Chief Judge could act on the Assembly’s request, both Governor Fubara and his deputy initiated separate legal actions at the Oyibo Division of the Rivers State High Court in Port Harcourt.
In their suits, the Governor and Deputy Governor challenged the legality of the impeachment process and sought urgent judicial intervention. The court granted interim injunctions restraining the Chief Judge from receiving, considering, or acting upon any request or resolution from the House of Assembly relating to the constitution of an impeachment panel.
The interim orders were issued on January 16, the same day the Assembly transmitted its request to the Chief Judge. The court specifically listed the Chief Judge as a defendant in the suits and expressly barred him from taking any step that could advance the impeachment process pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.
Contents of the Chief Judge’s Letter
In a letter dated January 20 and addressed to the Speaker, Justice Amadi confirmed that his office had received both the Assembly’s request and the interim court orders.
He stated that the orders explicitly restrained him, in his official capacity, from engaging with any impeachment-related documents or processes initiated by the legislature. According to the Chief Judge, the orders left him with no discretion to proceed, irrespective of the constitutional provisions cited by the Assembly.
The letter explained that the judiciary operates within a framework that requires strict adherence to court orders, whether interim or final, until they are set aside by a competent appellate court.
Doctrine of Lis Pendens and Its Implications
Justice Amadi relied heavily on the doctrine of lis pendens to justify his decision. This long-established principle of law holds that when a matter is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction, all parties to the dispute must refrain from taking actions that could undermine or pre-empt the court’s authority.
The Chief Judge noted that the interim injunctions were already the subject of appeals by the Rivers State House of Assembly. Under Nigerian jurisprudence, the filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of a court order unless a stay of execution is expressly granted.
As a result, the subsisting injunctions remain binding on all parties, including the Chief Judge, until they are vacated or the substantive suits are finally determined.
Constitutional Limits on Judicial Discretion
Justice Amadi emphasized that while Section 188 of the Constitution assigns a clear role to the Chief Judge in impeachment proceedings, that role cannot be exercised in defiance of valid court orders.
He explained that the Constitution itself is founded on the supremacy of the rule of law and the separation of powers, principles that require all public officials to act within the bounds of legality.
According to the Chief Judge, acting contrary to the interim injunctions would amount to judicial misconduct and a violation of his oath of office, which obliges him to uphold the Constitution and obey the law at all times.
Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution Explained
Section 188 of the Constitution outlines the procedure for the removal of a Governor or Deputy Governor on grounds of gross misconduct.
Key stages include:
- A written notice of allegations signed by at least one-third of the members of the House of Assembly.
- A resolution supported by at least two-thirds of the members to investigate the allegations.
- The constitution of a seven-member panel by the Chief Judge to conduct the investigation.
- The submission of the panel’s report to the House for final consideration.
The Chief Judge’s role is therefore procedural rather than discretionary. However, Justice Amadi clarified that this role is activated only when there are no legal impediments preventing its exercise.
Impact of Interim Injunctions on Constitutional Processes
Interim injunctions are designed to preserve the status quo while substantive issues are being resolved by the courts. In this case, the injunctions sought to halt the impeachment process at a critical stage to allow the court to determine whether the actions of the Assembly complied with constitutional and legal requirements.
Legal analysts note that such injunctions, while temporary, carry the full force of law and must be obeyed by all parties, including constitutional office holders.
The Chief Judge’s refusal to constitute the panel reflects this legal reality and reinforces the principle that constitutional processes must be conducted within the framework of judicial oversight.
Appeal by the Rivers State House of Assembly
The Rivers State House of Assembly has appealed the interim injunctions, arguing that the court orders unduly interfere with its constitutional powers to initiate impeachment proceedings.
The appeal raises complex constitutional questions, including the extent to which the judiciary can restrain legislative actions and whether impeachment proceedings are justiciable at an interim stage.
Until the appellate court delivers its ruling or grants a stay of execution, the interim orders remain operative, effectively suspending the impeachment process.
Rule of Law and Judicial Independence
Justice Amadi’s letter repeatedly emphasized the supremacy of the rule of law and the need for all branches of government to respect judicial decisions.
He warned that disregarding court orders, even in politically sensitive matters, could erode public confidence in democratic institutions and undermine constitutional governance.
By declining to act in the face of subsisting injunctions, the Chief Judge positioned the judiciary as an impartial arbiter committed to legal process rather than political expediency.
Political Context in Rivers State
The impeachment controversy is unfolding against a backdrop of intense political rivalry in Rivers State, a strategic oil-producing region with a history of executive-legislative conflicts.
Observers note that the crisis reflects deeper tensions within the state’s political establishment, including disputes over party control, legislative legitimacy, and executive authority.
While the impeachment process remains stalled, governance in the state continues amid heightened political uncertainty.
Implications for Governance and Constitutional Practice
The Chief Judge’s decision has broader implications for constitutional practice in Nigeria. It highlights the judiciary’s role as a stabilizing force during political crises and affirms that constitutional mechanisms, including impeachment, are subject to judicial scrutiny.
The situation also serves as a reminder that constitutional powers are not absolute and must be exercised in conformity with the law.
What Happens Next
The immediate future of the impeachment process depends on the outcome of the appeals against the interim injunctions and the substantive suits filed by the Governor and his deputy.
If the injunctions are set aside, the Chief Judge would be legally empowered to constitute the investigative panel. If they are upheld, the impeachment process may be delayed until the courts resolve the underlying constitutional issues.
For now, Justice Amadi has made clear that his hands are tied by law, not politics, and that any departure from judicial orders would constitute a breach of constitutional duty.
The unfolding legal battle continues to test the balance of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in Rivers State, with outcomes that may shape future impeachment proceedings across Nigeria.
Written by Ogheneyoma Grace, Omajemite Don and Jake Jacob
