Fubara's Impeachment: Legislation vs Judiciary

The unfolding impeachment saga in Rivers State has reached a critical juncture where constitutional procedure and judicial intervention are in direct conflict. While the Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, asserts that the Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Amadi, has officially acknowledged the receipt of the impeachment notice against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu, a High Court in Port Harcourt has concurrently issued an interim injunction to halt the process.

The lawmakers’ insistence on proceeding—evidenced by their vote to mandate the Chief Judge to constitute an investigative panel—highlights their reliance on the legislative autonomy granted by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.

From their perspective, the judiciary’s role at this stage should be minimal, as the "gross misconduct" charges, including alleged budgetary impropriety and unauthorized spending, are matters for a legislative panel to determine, not a courtroom.

The legitimacy of using the judiciary to stop an impeachment before it reaches its conclusion is a subject of intense legal debate in Nigeria. Traditionally, Section 188 (subsection 10) of the Constitution contains an "ouster clause," which states that "no proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly... shall be entertained or questioned in any court."

However, the Nigerian Supreme Court, most notably in the landmark case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (the Ladoja case), established that this ouster clause only applies if the legislature strictly follows every procedural step outlined in the Constitution.

If the Governor can demonstrate that the lawmakers have bypassed mandatory requirements—such as failing to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority to initiate the probe or failing to serve the notice properly—the court assumes jurisdiction to intervene.

In Fubara’s case, the use of a court order is framed not as an attempt to avoid clearing his name, but as a safeguard against "legislative rascality," ensuring that the process is not used as a political weapon in violation of the rule of law.

Regarding whether a court is allowed to stop an impeachment at this early stage, the answer is nuanced: while the court cannot interfere with the merits of the charges (whether Fubara is actually guilty of misconduct), it is legally permitted to pause the process if there are prima facie concerns about procedural legality.

By issuing a seven-day interim injunction, Justice Florence Fiberesima effectively signaled that the judiciary has a duty to ensure the "train" of impeachment stays on its constitutional tracks before it gains irreversible momentum.

While critics argue that the Governor should simply face the investigative panel to clear himself, the judicial intervention serves as a constitutional "check" to prevent an unconstitutional removal from office, which could lead to greater political instability.

Ultimately, the court is not stopping the Governor from clearing his name; it is ensuring that the forum in which he does so is legally and constitutionally constituted.