In the latest twist in the Rivers State political crisis, a Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt issued an interim injunction on Friday, temporarily halting the impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Nma-Odu.
The order, granted by Justice Florence Fiberesima following ex parte motions filed by the governor and deputy (in suits marked OYHC/7/CS/2026 and OYHC/6/CS/2026), restrains the state’s Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Chibuzor-Amadi, from receiving, forwarding, considering, or acting on any impeachment notice, resolution, or related documents from the Rivers State House of Assembly for a period of seven days.
The court also barred the Speaker, Martin Amaewhule, the Clerk, and other defendants from advancing the process, with the matter adjourned to January 23, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice.
This intervention came shortly after the Assembly voted unanimously to urge the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-member panel to probe allegations of gross misconduct, including budgetary impropriety and failure to present the 2026 appropriation bill—despite the lawmakers’ insistence that the process will continue and claims that the court lacks authority to interfere.
Under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the removal of a governor or deputy governor is strictly a legislative procedure.
It begins with a written notice of allegations of gross misconduct signed by at least one-third of the House of Assembly members, followed by a resolution supported by two-thirds to investigate, appointment of a seven-member investigative panel by the Chief Judge, and final adoption of the panel’s report by a two-thirds majority if proven.
Subsection (10) contains a clear ouster clause: “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.”
This provision is designed to insulate the impeachment process from judicial interference, treating it as a political matter within the legislature’s domain.
However, Nigerian courts—particularly the Supreme Court—have interpreted this ouster clause narrowly. In the landmark case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007), the apex court ruled that the clause only applies if the legislature strictly complies with the mandatory steps outlined in subsections (1) to (9) of Section 188.
If there is any violation of due process—such as improper notice, lack of required majority, procedural irregularities, or failure to follow the constitutional safeguards—the courts retain jurisdiction to inquire into the legality of the process.
Non-compliance renders the ouster ineffective, allowing judges to declare actions invalid, nullify proceedings, or issue orders to preserve the status quo, including interim injunctions.
This judicial stance has been consistent in subsequent interpretations, emphasising that the Constitution’s supremacy demands strict adherence to its provisions.
Courts cannot micromanage or block a properly conducted impeachment, but they serve as a check against abuse or illegality by the legislature.
In the current Rivers State context, the recent interim order reflects this principle. The injunction temporarily halts steps toward constituting a panel, pending further hearing, as the governor and deputy challenge alleged procedural flaws.
While the Assembly insists the court lacks authority under the ouster clause, established precedents suggest intervention is permissible where due process is questioned.
Ultimately, the Constitution balances legislative autonomy with judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary removals. The final determination in any case hinges on whether the impeachment follows every constitutional step to the letter—failure opens the door for courts to step in and protect the rule of law.