₦airaland Forum

Can a Court stop the impeachment of Governor Fubara?

The ongoing impeachment moves against Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State have once again brought to the fore a recurring constitutional question in Nigeria’s democratic practice: Can the courts stop an impeachment process once the House of Assembly has invited the Chief Judge to constitute a panel to investigate allegations against a governor?

The simple answer is yes.

Impeachment in Nigeria is a constitutional process governed strictly by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). While it is often described as a political tool in the hands of legislators, the law is settled that impeachment is not beyond judicial scrutiny. What courts may not interrogate are the political reasons for impeachment; what they can and do examine is whether the procedure laid down by the Constitution has been faithfully followed.

Under Section 188, impeachment follows a sequence: a notice of allegation signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House, service of the notice on the governor, a resolution supported by two-thirds of members, and a request to the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-man panel to investigate the allegations. Only after the panel submits its report can the House take the final step of removal.

Once the House writes to the Chief Judge to set up a panel, the process has certainly advanced. However, it has not crossed the point of no return.

Nigerian courts have consistently held that they can intervene at any stage of impeachment proceedings where there is evidence of constitutional breach. This position was firmly established in landmark cases such as Inakoju v. Adeleke and Dapialong v. Dariye. The courts made it clear that while impeachment is political in nature, compliance with constitutional procedure is a legal obligation enforceable by the judiciary.

Therefore, a court order can lawfully stop impeachment proceedings, even after the request to the Chief Judge, if certain conditions exist. These include situations where the House of Assembly is not properly constituted, where there is no valid quorum, where lawmakers involved are themselves under legal dispute, or where the steps taken violate the clear provisions of Section 188. Similarly, denial of fair hearing, rushed timelines, or actions driven by bad faith can attract judicial intervention.

In such cases, courts may issue restraining orders, injunctions, or orders maintaining the status quo. These orders may prevent the Chief Judge from constituting a panel or halt the panel from continuing its work. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not amount to judicial interference in legislative affairs; rather, it is the enforcement of constitutional supremacy.

However, it must also be stated clearly that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with impeachment where due process is strictly followed. If the House of Assembly is lawfully constituted, the required numbers are met, and every procedural step is complied with, the judiciary will likely allow the process to run its course.

Applied to the Rivers State situation, the decisive factor is not the political tension or the personalities involved, but the legality of the process. If Governor Fubara can demonstrate that the House’s actions are constitutionally defective, illegitimate, procedurally flawed, or done in bad faith, the courts are empowered to intervene. If not, the impeachment process may proceed unhindered.

This distinction is critical for Nigeria’s democracy. Allowing courts to enforce due process prevents impeachment from becoming a tool of vendetta or political ambush.

In the final analysis, impeachment is neither above the law nor immune from abuse. The Constitution remains the ultimate referee, and the courts remain its faithful guardians. Whether the impeachment of Governor Fubara proceeds or stalls will depend, not on political noise, but on strict adherence to constitutional discipline.

That, ultimately, is the true test of democratic maturity.

Christian U. Abu, PhD, MNIM, MAAPS

Evidence that court restraint CJ from presiding on a impeachment notice against the governor

More here. Court of justice is the hope of common sense

press9jatv:
Can a Court stop the impeachment of Governor Fubara?

The ongoing impeachment moves against Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State have once again brought to the fore a recurring constitutional question in Nigeria’s democratic practice: Can the courts stop an impeachment process once the House of Assembly has invited the Chief Judge to constitute a panel to investigate allegations against a governor?

The simple answer is yes.

Impeachment in Nigeria is a constitutional process governed strictly by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). While it is often described as a political tool in the hands of legislators, the law is settled that impeachment is not beyond judicial scrutiny. What courts may not interrogate are the political reasons for impeachment; what they can and do examine is whether the procedure laid down by the Constitution has been faithfully followed.

Under Section 188, impeachment follows a sequence: a notice of allegation signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House, service of the notice on the governor, a resolution supported by two-thirds of members, and a request to the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-man panel to investigate the allegations. Only after the panel submits its report can the House take the final step of removal.

Once the House writes to the Chief Judge to set up a panel, the process has certainly advanced. However, it has not crossed the point of no return.

Nigerian courts have consistently held that they can intervene at any stage of impeachment proceedings where there is evidence of constitutional breach. This position was firmly established in landmark cases such as Inakoju v. Adeleke and Dapialong v. Dariye. The courts made it clear that while impeachment is political in nature, compliance with constitutional procedure is a legal obligation enforceable by the judiciary.

Therefore, a court order can lawfully stop impeachment proceedings, even after the request to the Chief Judge, if certain conditions exist. These include situations where the House of Assembly is not properly constituted, where there is no valid quorum, where lawmakers involved are themselves under legal dispute, or where the steps taken violate the clear provisions of Section 188. Similarly, denial of fair hearing, rushed timelines, or actions driven by bad faith can attract judicial intervention.

In such cases, courts may issue restraining orders, injunctions, or orders maintaining the status quo. These orders may prevent the Chief Judge from constituting a panel or halt the panel from continuing its work. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not amount to judicial interference in legislative affairs; rather, it is the enforcement of constitutional supremacy.

However, it must also be stated clearly that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with impeachment where due process is strictly followed. If the House of Assembly is lawfully constituted, the required numbers are met, and every procedural step is complied with, the judiciary will likely allow the process to run its course.

Applied to the Rivers State situation, the decisive factor is not the political tension or the personalities involved, but the legality of the process. If Governor Fubara can demonstrate that the House’s actions are constitutionally defective, illegitimate, procedurally flawed, or done in bad faith, the courts are empowered to intervene. If not, the impeachment process may proceed unhindered.

This distinction is critical for Nigeria’s democracy. Allowing courts to enforce due process prevents impeachment from becoming a tool of vendetta or political ambush.

In the final analysis, impeachment is neither above the law nor immune from abuse. The Constitution remains the ultimate referee, and the courts remain its faithful guardians. Whether the impeachment of Governor Fubara proceeds or stalls will depend, not on political noise, but on strict adherence to constitutional discipline.

That, ultimately, is the true test of democratic maturity.

Christian U. Abu, PhD, MNIM, MAAPS

Yes but only if the procedure as prescribed by the Constitution was not followed. You got it wrong at para 6 of this piece as the court cannot intervene during the procedure. It is only at the conclusion of the procedure. Read s.188 cfrn ‘99 closely and the Inakoju and Abaribe cases.At the present stage of the procedure that court cannot stop the ongoing procedure. Only at the point where the procedure has run its entire cause can the Governor properly bring an action and all the court is empowered to do is to check to be sure that the procedure as prescribed by the Constitution was followed by the Legislature.

Some people just want to mislead FUBARA again with false hope of court, Mr FUBARA no court can stop any legislators from doing their constitutional duty

Because of the small oil money, these ones cannot even govern themselves. If Rivers State was as rich as Nvidia that generates an annual revenue of $130 billion, that means they would've killed every living thing in that state a long time ago. Nigerians don't deserve self-rule.

yarimo:
Some people just want to mislead FUBARA again with false hope of court, Mr FUBARA no court can stop any legislators from doing their constitutional duty

you better accept the reality here. We are educated here. Fubara can never be impeach.


Implications of a Rivers State High Court Order Barring the Chief Judge from Receiving an Impeachment Notice

1. The impeachment process in Rivers State is legally suspended.

Once a Rivers State High Court restrains the Chief Judge of Rivers State from receiving or acting on an impeachment notice, the impeachment process under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is effectively frozen.

Why:

● The Chief Judge’s role is mandatory, not discretionary.
● Without receipt of the notice by the Chief Judge, no investigative panel can be constituted.

Implication:

The Rivers State House of Assembly cannot lawfully move beyond internal discussions or resolutions.

2. The Assembly cannot lawfully bypass the Chief Judge

Under Nigerian constitutional law:

● There is no alternative channel for serving an impeachment notice.
●No acting Chief Judge or substitute body can step in while a court order subsists.

Any attempt to:

● Serve the notice through another official, or

●Continue the process without the Chief Judge
would be null, void, and unconstitutional.

3. The order must be obeyed until set aside

Even if the Assembly believes the court lacks jurisdiction:

● Compliance is mandatory until the order is overturned on appeal.
● Failure to comply exposes:
● Individual lawmakers
● Assembly leadership
● Any cooperating officials

to contempt of court proceedings.

📌 This is settled Nigerian law: court orders are obeyed first, challenged later.

4. The Rivers judiciary is shielded from political pressure

The order protects the institutional independence of the Rivers judiciary by:

● Preventing the Chief Judge from being forced into a politically charged process
● Ensuring due process is judicially reviewed before continuation

Implication:
The Chief Judge cannot lawfully act on, acknowledge, or process any impeachment notice while the order stands.

6. The dispute has shifted from politics to litigation

At this stage, the crisis in Rivers State is no longer primarily political.

The lawful options open are:

●Appeal the High Court ruling
● Apply to set it aside or vary it
●Maintain the status quo pending final determination

Until then, political escalation has no legal footing.

If a court can make someone who took 4th position in an election a governor, it can equally squash an impeachment procedure against a sitting governor.


We go all get sense for this corntree.

Any evil gang-up against the chosen, His Excellency Amaopusenibo Sir Siminalayi Fubara GSSRS, the one God has sent to deliver Rivers State, shall not stand.

Let the enemies of Rivers State hear this clearly:
No plot built on envy, betrayal, or selfish ambition will outlive truth. Evil sycophants may gather, but they will scatter, for when the foundation is righteous, the storm only strengthens it.

As our elders say, “When a man walks with a clear conscience, even the path of fire becomes a road of victory.”

Rivers State will move forward.
God’s purpose will prevail.
And our mandate shall be protected now and always.

Ijaw Matters View Point

tinibu should be impeached for gross incompetence n mismanagement of our fragile economy asap

Yes it can ... Very well nekls

Yes if it is Nigerian judiciary, that give judicial order according to individual pocket or to the highest bidder. In a saner clime, NO

Wike and Fubara should go and rest joor.

Their news is becoming irritating, abeg.

The impeachment cannot proceed...

They failed to notify the Chief Judge to constitute the 7 man investigative panel within 7 days as stipulated by the Constitution...


Impeachment notice on the chief Judge came very late, because of late arrival of signal from Abuja

press9jatv:
Can a Court stop the impeachment of Governor Fubara?

The ongoing impeachment moves against Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State have once again brought to the fore a recurring constitutional question in Nigeria’s democratic practice: Can the courts stop an impeachment process once the House of Assembly has invited the Chief Judge to constitute a panel to investigate allegations against a governor?

The simple answer is yes.

Impeachment in Nigeria is a constitutional process governed strictly by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). While it is often described as a political tool in the hands of legislators, the law is settled that impeachment is not beyond judicial scrutiny. What courts may not interrogate are the political reasons for impeachment; what they can and do examine is whether the procedure laid down by the Constitution has been faithfully followed.

Under Section 188, impeachment follows a sequence: a notice of allegation signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House, service of the notice on the governor, a resolution supported by two-thirds of members, and a request to the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-man panel to investigate the allegations. Only after the panel submits its report can the House take the final step of removal.

Once the House writes to the Chief Judge to set up a panel, the process has certainly advanced. However, it has not crossed the point of no return.

Nigerian courts have consistently held that they can intervene at any stage of impeachment proceedings where there is evidence of constitutional breach. This position was firmly established in landmark cases such as Inakoju v. Adeleke and Dapialong v. Dariye. The courts made it clear that while impeachment is political in nature, compliance with constitutional procedure is a legal obligation enforceable by the judiciary.

Therefore, a court order can lawfully stop impeachment proceedings, even after the request to the Chief Judge, if certain conditions exist. These include situations where the House of Assembly is not properly constituted, where there is no valid quorum, where lawmakers involved are themselves under legal dispute, or where the steps taken violate the clear provisions of Section 188. Similarly, denial of fair hearing, rushed timelines, or actions driven by bad faith can attract judicial intervention.

In such cases, courts may issue restraining orders, injunctions, or orders maintaining the status quo. These orders may prevent the Chief Judge from constituting a panel or halt the panel from continuing its work. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not amount to judicial interference in legislative affairs; rather, it is the enforcement of constitutional supremacy.

However, it must also be stated clearly that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with impeachment where due process is strictly followed. If the House of Assembly is lawfully constituted, the required numbers are met, and every procedural step is complied with, the judiciary will likely allow the process to run its course.

Applied to the Rivers State situation, the decisive factor is not the political tension or the personalities involved, but the legality of the process. If Governor Fubara can demonstrate that the House’s actions are constitutionally defective, illegitimate, procedurally flawed, or done in bad faith, the courts are empowered to intervene. If not, the impeachment process may proceed unhindered.

This distinction is critical for Nigeria’s democracy. Allowing courts to enforce due process prevents impeachment from becoming a tool of vendetta or political ambush.

In the final analysis, impeachment is neither above the law nor immune from abuse. The Constitution remains the ultimate referee, and the courts remain its faithful guardians. Whether the impeachment of Governor Fubara proceeds or stalls will depend, not on political noise, but on strict adherence to constitutional discipline.

That, ultimately, is the true test of democratic maturity.

Christian U. Abu, PhD, MNIM, MAAPS

Can a president who is even illegimate suspend a people elected governor? Answer this question and have peace.

Court can stop CJ not to form panel, and not impeachment process, if CJ mistakenly form panel, that is end of fubara as gov, at least for now, until court overturn such decision, if he goes to court challenge his impeachment.

Everytime rivers State

Na only rivers State dey Nigeria??

Wike let go of this state...... No be your papa be the founding father...

Martins- the speaker, you can never ever be the governor

Rule of law has been bastardized... Leaders no longer care for the masses... Nigerians behold their children will rule over you.

It's really disturbing that Rivers State issue would degenerate to this level again. It means the mediation only treated the symptoms and not the problem.

Anyway, we watch how it unfolds.

How can Rivers state develop with all this crisis because a nation cannot be built during wars, all these fight her for their personal gains and interest and not the interest of the masses, Wetin Wike and Tinubu rigging foundation caused, it was a cult things gone wrong

For apc chairman to keep mute with hope uzodimma fubara is gone

If the governor feels the processes weren't duly followed. The court will hear him and give advice.
Fubara didn't need to walk this tight rope at all.
The notice of impeachment will be served to his lawyer in court. This is what his detractors want . They can't serve him in Government House, they will serve his lawyers if they appear on his behalf.

We all should cultivate our own gardens.

Yes a court can . It has happened before

zoedew:
Yes but only if the procedure as prescribed by the Constitution was not followed. You got it wrong at para 6 of this piece as the court cannot intervene during the procedure. It is only at the conclusion of the procedure. Read s.188 cfrn ‘99 closely and the Inakoju and Abaribe cases.At the present stage of the procedure that court cannot stop the ongoing procedure. Only at the point where the procedure has run its entire cause can the Governor properly bring a action and all the court is empowered to do is to check to be sure that the procedure as prescribed by the Constitution was followed by the Legislature.

Be calming down. mark my word, the CJ will not set up the panel and heaven will not fall, then let's see how they would proceed with the impeachment without first, RSCJ constituting an investigative panel.

God will put Wike to shame.

He'll end up inconsequential like HELLruFIRE

The whole matter is just annoying. They should allow the governor to run his state na. Wike has completely abandoned his duty as FCT minister while focusing in his state affairs which is wrong.

b0rn2fuck:
How can Rivers state develop with all this crisis because a nation cannot be built during wars, all these fight her for their personal gains and interest and not the interest of the masses, Wetin Wike and Tinubu rigging foundation caused, it was a cult things gone wrong

Online court can stop it,all the we will burn Nigeria up can stop it but I t the actual sense,fubara na aba made,e no go last

Court can't stop it but "we" will make the court to stop it.

And any judge who acted contrary to our recommendation and give audience to carry on with the impeachment process will ends up in Sambisa forest Court or in a village court in Sokoto by compulsory transfer.

Now Fubara is with us nothing can happen to him. Take it or leave it.

My own be say this madam can cause a miscarriage of justice

press9jatv:
Can a Court stop the impeachment of Governor Fubara?

The ongoing impeachment moves against Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State have once again brought to the fore a recurring constitutional question in Nigeria’s democratic practice: Can the courts stop an impeachment process once the House of Assembly has invited the Chief Judge to constitute a panel to investigate allegations against a governor?

The simple answer is yes.

Impeachment in Nigeria is a constitutional process governed strictly by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). While it is often described as a political tool in the hands of legislators, the law is settled that impeachment is not beyond judicial scrutiny. What courts may not interrogate are the political reasons for impeachment; what they can and do examine is whether the procedure laid down by the Constitution has been faithfully followed.

Under Section 188, impeachment follows a sequence: a notice of allegation signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House, service of the notice on the governor, a resolution supported by two-thirds of members, and a request to the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-man panel to investigate the allegations. Only after the panel submits its report can the House take the final step of removal.

Once the House writes to the Chief Judge to set up a panel, the process has certainly advanced. However, it has not crossed the point of no return.

Nigerian courts have consistently held that they can intervene at any stage of impeachment proceedings where there is evidence of constitutional breach. This position was firmly established in landmark cases such as Inakoju v. Adeleke and Dapialong v. Dariye. The courts made it clear that while impeachment is political in nature, compliance with constitutional procedure is a legal obligation enforceable by the judiciary.

Therefore, a court order can lawfully stop impeachment proceedings, even after the request to the Chief Judge, if certain conditions exist. These include situations where the House of Assembly is not properly constituted, where there is no valid quorum, where lawmakers involved are themselves under legal dispute, or where the steps taken violate the clear provisions of Section 188. Similarly, denial of fair hearing, rushed timelines, or actions driven by bad faith can attract judicial intervention.

In such cases, courts may issue restraining orders, injunctions, or orders maintaining the status quo. These orders may prevent the Chief Judge from constituting a panel or halt the panel from continuing its work. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not amount to judicial interference in legislative affairs; rather, it is the enforcement of constitutional supremacy.

However, it must also be stated clearly that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with impeachment where due process is strictly followed. If the House of Assembly is lawfully constituted, the required numbers are met, and every procedural step is complied with, the judiciary will likely allow the process to run its course.

Applied to the Rivers State situation, the decisive factor is not the political tension or the personalities involved, but the legality of the process. If Governor Fubara can demonstrate that the House’s actions are constitutionally defective, illegitimate, procedurally flawed, or done in bad faith, the courts are empowered to intervene. If not, the impeachment process may proceed unhindered.

This distinction is critical for Nigeria’s democracy. Allowing courts to enforce due process prevents impeachment from becoming a tool of vendetta or political ambush.

In the final analysis, impeachment is neither above the law nor immune from abuse. The Constitution remains the ultimate referee, and the courts remain its faithful guardians. Whether the impeachment of Governor Fubara proceeds or stalls will depend, not on political noise, but on strict adherence to constitutional discipline.

That, ultimately, is the true test of democratic maturity.

Christian U. Abu, PhD, MNIM, MAAPS

Those handling Fubara are not helping matter at all. Since they had their quasi-settlement they would have found away to lure the House into passing the Budget of 2024 Supreme Court asked him to present into law. None of them did this and this is one case used against him since it has been decided by supreme court. Fubara was allowed to come back on political solution not that he was cleared on the offences the House leveled against him.