₦airaland Forum

We the Rivers Youth Movement have read with total dismay on social media and numerous News outlet a purported court Order restraining the chief judge from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Below is a properly cited, structured, and analytical Nigerian constitutional law treatment of the question whether a court can stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties, with specific constitutional provisions.
1. Constitutional Status of a Chief Judge

(a) Source of Authority
The office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chief Judge of a State is created by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Relevant provisions:
Section 231 – Chief Justice of Nigeria
Section 256 – Chief Judge of a State
Section 271 – Appointment of State Chief Judge
Section 292 – Removal of judicial officers

A Chief Judge’s powers are constitutional, not derived from statute or executive discretion.

2. General Rule: Courts Cannot Restrain Constitutional Duties

Legal Principle

A court cannot issue an injunction restraining a Chief Judge from performing constitutional or administrative judicial functions.
This principle is anchored on:
Separation of powers
Independence of the judiciary
Hierarchy and comity within the judicial system
A court of coordinate or lower jurisdiction lacks competence to restrain a constitutional judicial officer.

3. Exclusive Disciplinary Authority of the NJC

Constitutional Basis

Section 153(1)(i) – Establishes the National Judicial Council (NJC)
Paragraph 21, Third Schedule – Vests disciplinary control over judicial officers in the NJC

The NJC has exclusive power to: Investigate allegations
Recommend suspension or removal
Exercise disciplinary control

4. Leading Authority: Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation

Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423 (SC)

Facts:

The Governor of Kwara State suspended the Chief Judge without NJC involvement.
Supreme Court held:
Suspension or removal of a Chief Judge without NJC recommendation is unconstitutional
The NJC’s role is mandatory
Any action bypassing NJC is null and void

Key Ratio:

“The National Judicial Council is the only body constitutionally empowered to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers.

Implication:

If even the Governor and House of Assembly cannot suspend a Chief Judge without the NJC, a court cannot do so by injunction.

5. Courts Cannot Assume NJC’s Role

NJC v. Aladejana (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 570

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
Disciplinary powers over judges lie exclusively with the NJC
Courts cannot usurp this role

6. Limits of Judicial Intervention

What Courts MAY Do

A court may:
Interpret constitutional provisions

Declare actions unconstitutional

Enforce NJC recommendations

Review due process after NJC action

What Courts MAY NOT Do

A court may not:
Suspend a Chief Judge

Stop assignment of cases

Restrain administrative control of courts

Issue ex parte orders preventing performance of duties
Any such order is a nullity.

Relevant Supporting Authorities

A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1
The Supreme Court warned against: Judicial interference that destabilizes constitutional governance.
Military Gov. of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621
Affirms supremacy of the Constitution and due process.

Practical Application

Example Scenario
If a litigant obtains:
An ex parte order restraining a Chief Judge from swearing in judges or assigning case

Legal Effect:

Order is void ab initio

Constitutes abuse of court process
Liable to be set aside on appeal or by the issuing court

Summary

Legal Position
Court stopping Chief Judge’s duties

❌ Not allowed
NJC disciplinary role

✔ Exclusive
Court enforcing NJC decision

✔ Allowed
Suspension without NJC

❌ Unconstitutional
Injunction against CJ
❌ Nullity

FinalConclusion

✔ A Nigerian court cannot stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties.

✔ Only the NJC can discipline or recommend removal.

❌ Any court order restraining a Chief Judge without NJC involvement is unconstitutional and void.

Based on the above, we hereby call on the NJC as a matter of National interest to sanction the judge who issued the restraining order.

We further call on Gov Fubara and hus Deputy to appear before the 7 man panel to be constituted by the chief Judge and defend all allegations.

We wish to warn that if within 72hrs, the NJC fails to sanction the Judge, we vow to shutdown all operations in Rivers state, All industries. Schools. Markets, shops. Banks will be shutdown until our demands are implemented.

Hon Tamunotonye Briggs
Publicity secretary

This Fubara vs wike wahala no go end!

The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

We call on USA,Russia, United Kingdom, France and countries of the world to rise up to their voices and condemn this Judicial rascality

In Nigeria it's possible. Take that to the bank

Donald Trump must act now to save our democracy.

How can our country move forward when our judges have all dethroned God fir materialistic pursuit.

We are shocked that both Peter Obi and Atiku are yet to condemn this restraining order .

Yet they both clamour for a better Nigeria

Cherrybae:
We the Rivers Youth Movement have read with total dismay on social media and numerous News outlet a purported court Order restraining the chief judge from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Below is a properly cited, structured, and analytical Nigerian constitutional law treatment of the question whether a court can stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties, with specific constitutional provisions.
1. Constitutional Status of a Chief Judge

(a) Source of Authority
The office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chief Judge of a State is created by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Relevant provisions:
Section 231 – Chief Justice of Nigeria
Section 256 – Chief Judge of a State
Section 271 – Appointment of State Chief Judge
Section 292 – Removal of judicial officers

A Chief Judge’s powers are constitutional, not derived from statute or executive discretion.

2. General Rule: Courts Cannot Restrain Constitutional Duties

Legal Principle

A court cannot issue an injunction restraining a Chief Judge from performing constitutional or administrative judicial functions.
This principle is anchored on:
Separation of powers
Independence of the judiciary
Hierarchy and comity within the judicial system
A court of coordinate or lower jurisdiction lacks competence to restrain a constitutional judicial officer.

3. Exclusive Disciplinary Authority of the NJC

Constitutional Basis

Section 153(1)(i) – Establishes the National Judicial Council (NJC)
Paragraph 21, Third Schedule – Vests disciplinary control over judicial officers in the NJC

The NJC has exclusive power to: Investigate allegations
Recommend suspension or removal
Exercise disciplinary control

4. Leading Authority: Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation

Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423 (SC)

Facts:

The Governor of Kwara State suspended the Chief Judge without NJC involvement.
Supreme Court held:
Suspension or removal of a Chief Judge without NJC recommendation is unconstitutional
The NJC’s role is mandatory
Any action bypassing NJC is null and void

Key Ratio:

“The National Judicial Council is the only body constitutionally empowered to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers.

Implication:

If even the Governor and House of Assembly cannot suspend a Chief Judge without the NJC, a court cannot do so by injunction.

5. Courts Cannot Assume NJC’s Role

NJC v. Aladejana (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 570

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
Disciplinary powers over judges lie exclusively with the NJC
Courts cannot usurp this role

6. Limits of Judicial Intervention

What Courts MAY Do

A court may:
Interpret constitutional provisions

Declare actions unconstitutional

Enforce NJC recommendations

Review due process after NJC action

What Courts MAY NOT Do

A court may not:
Suspend a Chief Judge

Stop assignment of cases

Restrain administrative control of courts

Issue ex parte orders preventing performance of duties
Any such order is a nullity.

Relevant Supporting Authorities

A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1
The Supreme Court warned against: Judicial interference that destabilizes constitutional governance.
Military Gov. of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621
Affirms supremacy of the Constitution and due process.

Practical Application

Example Scenario
If a litigant obtains:
An ex parte order restraining a Chief Judge from swearing in judges or assigning case

Legal Effect:

Order is void ab initio

Constitutes abuse of court process
Liable to be set aside on appeal or by the issuing court

Summary

Legal Position
Court stopping Chief Judge’s duties

❌ Not allowed
NJC disciplinary role

✔ Exclusive
Court enforcing NJC decision

✔ Allowed
Suspension without NJC

❌ Unconstitutional
Injunction against CJ
❌ Nullity

FinalConclusion

✔ A Nigerian court cannot stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties.

✔ Only the NJC can discipline or recommend removal.

❌ Any court order restraining a Chief Judge without NJC involvement is unconstitutional and void.

Based on the above, we hereby call on the NJC as a matter of National interest to sanction the judge who issued the restraining order.

We further call on Gov Fubara and hus Deputy to appear before the 7 man panel to be constituted by the chief Judge and defend all allegations.

We wish to warn that if within 72hrs, the NJC fails to sanction the Judge, we vow to shutdown all operations in Rivers state, All industries. Schools. Markets, shops. Banks will be shutdown until our demands are implemented.

Hon Tamunotonye Briggs
Publicity secretary

Go and file your appeal at the court of appeal and stop making useless noises here

Cherrybae:
The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

Tell them to go and challenged the order at the court of appeal, it's not in their mouth or yours to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of a court order.

manmade:
Tell them to go and challenged the order at the court of appeal, it's not in their mouth or yours to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of a court order.

Why not condemn this judicial rascality. The order will not stand.

manmade:
Go and file your appeal at the court of appeal and stop making useless noises here

Appeal for what. Expect a total lockdown in Rivers state.

The order will not stand

Cherrybae:
The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED.

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

Cherrybae:
We are shocked that both Peter Obi and Atiku are yet to condemn this restraining order .

Yet they both clamour for a better Nigeria

The Court Intervened because
IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

,

Faber:
IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED.

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

But the present Suit in challenge is premature!

Cherrybae:
We the Rivers Youth Movement have read with total dismay on social media and numerous News outlet a purported court Order restraining the chief judge from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Below is a properly cited, structured, and analytical Nigerian constitutional law treatment of the question whether a court can stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties, with specific constitutional provisions.
1. Constitutional Status of a Chief Judge

(a) Source of Authority
The office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chief Judge of a State is created by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Relevant provisions:
Section 231 – Chief Justice of Nigeria
Section 256 – Chief Judge of a State
Section 271 – Appointment of State Chief Judge
Section 292 – Removal of judicial officers

A Chief Judge’s powers are constitutional, not derived from statute or executive discretion.

2. General Rule: Courts Cannot Restrain Constitutional Duties

Legal Principle

A court cannot issue an injunction restraining a Chief Judge from performing constitutional or administrative judicial functions.
This principle is anchored on:
Separation of powers
Independence of the judiciary
Hierarchy and comity within the judicial system
A court of coordinate or lower jurisdiction lacks competence to restrain a constitutional judicial officer.

3. Exclusive Disciplinary Authority of the NJC

Constitutional Basis

Section 153(1)(i) – Establishes the National Judicial Council (NJC)
Paragraph 21, Third Schedule – Vests disciplinary control over judicial officers in the NJC

The NJC has exclusive power to: Investigate allegations
Recommend suspension or removal
Exercise disciplinary control

4. Leading Authority: Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation

Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423 (SC)

Facts:

The Governor of Kwara State suspended the Chief Judge without NJC involvement.
Supreme Court held:
Suspension or removal of a Chief Judge without NJC recommendation is unconstitutional
The NJC’s role is mandatory
Any action bypassing NJC is null and void

Key Ratio:

“The National Judicial Council is the only body constitutionally empowered to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers.

Implication:

If even the Governor and House of Assembly cannot suspend a Chief Judge without the NJC, a court cannot do so by injunction.

5. Courts Cannot Assume NJC’s Role

NJC v. Aladejana (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 570

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
Disciplinary powers over judges lie exclusively with the NJC
Courts cannot usurp this role

6. Limits of Judicial Intervention

What Courts MAY Do

A court may:
Interpret constitutional provisions

Declare actions unconstitutional

Enforce NJC recommendations

Review due process after NJC action

What Courts MAY NOT Do

A court may not:
Suspend a Chief Judge

Stop assignment of cases

Restrain administrative control of courts

Issue ex parte orders preventing performance of duties
Any such order is a nullity.

Relevant Supporting Authorities

A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1
The Supreme Court warned against: Judicial interference that destabilizes constitutional governance.
Military Gov. of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621
Affirms supremacy of the Constitution and due process.

Practical Application

Example Scenario
If a litigant obtains:
An ex parte order restraining a Chief Judge from swearing in judges or assigning case

Legal Effect:

Order is void ab initio

Constitutes abuse of court process
Liable to be set aside on appeal or by the issuing court

Summary

Legal Position
Court stopping Chief Judge’s duties

❌ Not allowed
NJC disciplinary role

✔ Exclusive
Court enforcing NJC decision

✔ Allowed
Suspension without NJC

❌ Unconstitutional
Injunction against CJ
❌ Nullity

FinalConclusion

✔ A Nigerian court cannot stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties.

✔ Only the NJC can discipline or recommend removal.

❌ Any court order restraining a Chief Judge without NJC involvement is unconstitutional and void.

Based on the above, we hereby call on the NJC as a matter of National interest to sanction the judge who issued the restraining order.

We further call on Gov Fubara and hus Deputy to appear before the 7 man panel to be constituted by the chief Judge and defend all allegations.

We wish to warn that if within 72hrs, the NJC fails to sanction the Judge, we vow to shutdown all operations in Rivers state, All industries. Schools. Markets, shops. Banks will be shutdown until our demands are implemented.

Hon Tamunotonye Briggs
Publicity secretary

lol. If Fubara intends to shift the battle to the courtroom, he stands no chance against Wike. The appeal, and supreme Court will still dish him a blow.

I am pro Fubara, but he is too weak to my liking

Cherrybae:
We the Rivers Youth Movement have read with total dismay on social media and numerous News outlet a purported court Order restraining the chief judge from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Below is a properly cited, structured, and analytical Nigerian constitutional law treatment of the question whether a court can stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties, with specific constitutional provisions.
1. Constitutional Status of a Chief Judge

(a) Source of Authority
The office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chief Judge of a State is created by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Relevant provisions:
Section 231 – Chief Justice of Nigeria
Section 256 – Chief Judge of a State
Section 271 – Appointment of State Chief Judge
Section 292 – Removal of judicial officers

A Chief Judge’s powers are constitutional, not derived from statute or executive discretion.

2. General Rule: Courts Cannot Restrain Constitutional Duties

Legal Principle

A court cannot issue an injunction restraining a Chief Judge from performing constitutional or administrative judicial functions.
This principle is anchored on:
Separation of powers
Independence of the judiciary
Hierarchy and comity within the judicial system
A court of coordinate or lower jurisdiction lacks competence to restrain a constitutional judicial officer.

3. Exclusive Disciplinary Authority of the NJC

Constitutional Basis

Section 153(1)(i) – Establishes the National Judicial Council (NJC)
Paragraph 21, Third Schedule – Vests disciplinary control over judicial officers in the NJC

The NJC has exclusive power to: Investigate allegations
Recommend suspension or removal
Exercise disciplinary control

4. Leading Authority: Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation

Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423 (SC)

Facts:

The Governor of Kwara State suspended the Chief Judge without NJC involvement.
Supreme Court held:
Suspension or removal of a Chief Judge without NJC recommendation is unconstitutional
The NJC’s role is mandatory
Any action bypassing NJC is null and void

Key Ratio:

“The National Judicial Council is the only body constitutionally empowered to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers.

Implication:

If even the Governor and House of Assembly cannot suspend a Chief Judge without the NJC, a court cannot do so by injunction.

5. Courts Cannot Assume NJC’s Role

NJC v. Aladejana (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 570

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
Disciplinary powers over judges lie exclusively with the NJC
Courts cannot usurp this role

6. Limits of Judicial Intervention

What Courts MAY Do

A court may:
Interpret constitutional provisions

Declare actions unconstitutional

Enforce NJC recommendations

Review due process after NJC action

What Courts MAY NOT Do

A court may not:
Suspend a Chief Judge

Stop assignment of cases

Restrain administrative control of courts

Issue ex parte orders preventing performance of duties
Any such order is a nullity.

Relevant Supporting Authorities

A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1
The Supreme Court warned against: Judicial interference that destabilizes constitutional governance.
Military Gov. of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621
Affirms supremacy of the Constitution and due process.

Practical Application

Example Scenario
If a litigant obtains:
An ex parte order restraining a Chief Judge from swearing in judges or assigning case

Legal Effect:

Order is void ab initio

Constitutes abuse of court process
Liable to be set aside on appeal or by the issuing court

Summary

Legal Position
Court stopping Chief Judge’s duties

❌ Not allowed
NJC disciplinary role

✔ Exclusive
Court enforcing NJC decision

✔ Allowed
Suspension without NJC

❌ Unconstitutional
Injunction against CJ
❌ Nullity

FinalConclusion

✔ A Nigerian court cannot stop a Chief Judge from carrying out constitutional duties.

✔ Only the NJC can discipline or recommend removal.

❌ Any court order restraining a Chief Judge without NJC involvement is unconstitutional and void.

Based on the above, we hereby call on the NJC as a matter of National interest to sanction the judge who issued the restraining order.

We further call on Gov Fubara and hus Deputy to appear before the 7 man panel to be constituted by the chief Judge and defend all allegations.

We wish to warn that if within 72hrs, the NJC fails to sanction the Judge, we vow to shutdown all operations in Rivers state, All industries. Schools. Markets, shops. Banks will be shutdown until our demands are implemented.

Hon Tamunotonye Briggs
Publicity secretary

Reminder to the naysayers: Reality doesn’t need your permission.

Good morning lovers of Gov. Sim Fubara.

Faber:
The Court Intervened because
IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

100% truths here

Ji

Cherrybae:
The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

I am not a lawyer buh from what i read, where the law state the court can not stop constitutional duties .. the references are the legislature and Executive

court cant stop constitutional duties of other arms of government to enforce independence

However there is no law that stop the Judiciary from regulating itself/internal or exercising discretion

Folake4U how bad did i disgrace my head 🙈

Faber:
IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED.

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

But una say Wike na lawyer, so he never knew the HOA should serve the governor and the Chief judge the same time, na wa what OCJ he should be able to advise his camp, what a waste of time

Pierocash:
lol. If Fubara intends to shift the battle to the courtroom, he stands no chance against Wike. The appeal, and supreme Court will still dish him a blow.

I am pro Fubara, but he is too weak to my liking

You think Wike can still win a single court case moving forward, just and see all that power don leave am any case he takes to court now he would loose

Cherrybae:
The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

You guys don't know the law more than the CJ let's wait and see if he's going to honor the ruling

Faber:
IMPEACHMENT OF GOV. FUBARA IS ALREADY STATUTE BARRED.

‎The Impeachment Proceedings against Governor Fubara and his Deputy by the Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is already STATUTE BARRED
‎
‎An impeachment proceedings is time barred.
‎
‎The Supreme Court has consistently held that impeachment proceedings require STRICT COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the Constitution.
‎
‎In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 432 and Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) PT. 1036) 332, the Supreme Court held that where the House of Assembly fails to STRICTLY COMPLY with CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS -such as: a valid two-thirds majority for the initial resolution, or proper service of notice on the affected Executive, etc the Courts have jurisdiction to intervene and stop the Chief Judge from proceeding.
‎
‎NOTE that the Order only restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers state not to act on the request from the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
‎
‎By virtue of Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Chief Judge shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly appoint a Panel of seven person WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS of the passing of a motion for impeachment.
‎
‎Recall that the Rivers State House of Assembly moved the motion to impeach the Governor Fubara and his Deputy on the 8TH DAY of JANUARY, 2026.
‎
‎Thus, the Chief Judge of Rivers State has SEVEN (7) DAYS to appoint the Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations at the request of the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
‎
‎It is also on record that it is only today being 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 that the Speaker of Rivers State House deemed it fit to request the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the said Panel.
‎
‎A simple arithmetic of calculating the days from 8TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 to 16TH DAY of JANUARY 2026 will give you at least EIGHT ( CLEAR DAYS.
‎
‎The above being the case, the request to Chief Judge by the Speaker of the House of Assembly is already statute barred together with the powers of the Chief Judge of the Rivers State to appoint a Panel to investigate the purported allegations.
‎
‎Therefore any action taken by the Chief Judge of Rivers State and or the Rivers State House of Assembly on the impeachment proceedings going forward has become unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect, and liable to be set aside; because the impeachment proceedings is now statute barred and cannot be resurrected.
‎
‎Assuming without conceding that the seven days time, within which the Chief Judge has to appoint a Panel to investigate the allegations is still running; by virtue of the Interim Order of Court restraining him from so doing, which shall last for SEVEN (7) DAY, and shall end on the 23RD DAY of JANUARY 2026, being the date the case was adjourned to, thus the seven days granted the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint the Panel of investigation under the Constitution would have also elapsed.

It is obvious that:

1. The Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not send a request to the Chief Judge of Rivers State to appoint a Panel of seven persons within SEVEN DAYS of the impeachment notice; and

2. The Chief Judge of Rivers State also did not appoint the said Panel within Seven days of the notice of impeachment.

‎Head or tail, the impeachment proceedings is already dead.
‎
‎The Speaker of the House of Assembly killed the impeachment proceedings with his own hands by not acting within time. He shot himself on the foot. He has himself to blame.
‎
‎The battle is over forever.
‎
‎Congratulation to Governor Fubara and his Deputy.

Mmm ! sounds logical to me buh law matter is very funny ..
Ask 5 lawyer to interprete one law and you will get 5 different interpretations

maybe folake4u can tell her own side of the story

Cherrybae:
The court order s prima facie, unconstitutional and a nullity..

Coordinate Jurisdiction Problem.

A High Court:
Cannot restrain a Chief Judge of a State in the performance of constitutional duties

Especially where the Chief Judge is administrative head of that same court system

Such an order offends:
Judicial hierarchy
Comity
Institutional independence.

Go and vacate the order first stop disturbing our peace, if you are a lawyer you should know that.

Many kids in nairaland will just be typing rubbish in the name of I have commented, when I was saying that the court restraining the CJ is Dead on arrival some kids are just posting rubbish just because they don't like WIKE.