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
