Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Port Harcourt, Nigeria — The protracted political crisis in Rivers State took a dramatic turn this week after a Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt issued a temporary injunction restraining the state’s Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Chibuzor Amadi, and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from advancing impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Nma Odu.
In a ruling delivered on Friday by Justice F. A. Fiberesima, the High Court granted interim orders in two suits filed separately by the governor and his deputy, effectively halting all actions connected to the impeachment process for seven days, pending further court proceedings. The orders specifically bar Justice Amadi from receiving, forwarding, considering or acting on any impeachment‑related correspondence from the Assembly, including notices, resolutions or requests aimed at constituting an investigative panel into alleged misconduct.
The injunction also restrains the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martins Chike‑Amaewhule, the Clerk of the House, and 32 other defendants, from taking any further steps toward the impeachment move during the interim period. The court granted the governor and his deputy leave to serve the injunction and originating documents on the defendants by substituted service — including pasting them at the gate of the Assembly quarters — and ordered that the Chief Judge be served through staff at his chambers. The matter has been adjourned to January 23, 2026, for hearing of the substantive motion on notice.
The Assembly initiated the impeachment process amid longstanding tensions between the executive and legislative arms of the Rivers government. Lawmakers moved to investigate allegations of gross misconduct, including disputes over budget presentation, alleged interference with the legislative arm’s functions, and other issues critics say reflect governance failures. The House had written to the Chief Judge requesting the immediate constitution of a seven‑member panel to probe these allegations as part of the impeachment process.
Despite the court’s order, the Rivers State House of Assembly maintained that the impeachment process remains constitutional and on course. In a statement released late Friday night, the Assembly’s committee on information insisted that letters conveying the impeachment notice had been formally received and acknowledged by the Chief Judge, challenging the notion that the judicial directive had impeded procedural actions. The lawmakers cited Section 188(10) of the Nigerian Constitution, which they argue restricts judicial interference in impeachment processes, asserting that the judiciary has no power to halt such legislative procedures.
Political analysts say the Assembly’s public pushback highlights the deepening institutional standoff and could further complicate efforts to resolve the crisis. While impeachment is constitutionally recognised as a mechanism for holding executive officials accountable, legal experts have pointed out that due process — including strict adherence to constitutional requirements and fair hearing — remains central to preserving the rule of law and the integrity of governance institutions. The interim court order underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring procedural safeguards and maintaining the status quo while legal arguments are fully considered.
The dispute has roots in months of political tension within Rivers State, where disagreements between the governor and key political actors, including legislative leaders and influential stakeholders, have repeatedly surfaced. Efforts to find political accommodation or reconcile differences have so far failed to produce lasting solutions, with periodic assertions of authority and counterclaims of constitutional impropriety characterising the standoff.
Supporters of Governor Fubara have welcomed the court’s intervention as a necessary check on what they describe as politically motivated attempts to unseat the administration without adhering to legal prerequisites. They argue that the legislative drive toward impeachment has been fueled by factional interests rather than substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
Conversely, critics aligned with the Assembly’s position see the court’s ruling as a temporary obstruction of legislative oversight and a delay tactic by the executive. They have reiterated their commitment to pursuing accountability measures they say are mandated by the constitution and necessary to uphold democratic checks and balances.
The legal contest now moves toward next week’s hearing, where both sides will present fuller arguments on the merits of the case. Observers say the outcome could have important implications not only for the governance of Rivers State but also for the balance of power between executive and legislative branches in Nigeria’s subnational governments.
As the political impasse unfolds, attention has turned to legal interpretations of constitutional provisions governing impeachment, the scope of judicial intervention, and the interplay between institutional autonomy and accountability. The coming days are likely to see intensified legal advocacy, heightened public interest, and strategic manoeuvring by political actors seeking to shape the resolution of one of Nigeria’s most closely watched state‑level political crises.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments