Whither Our Impeachment Legislators? -By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

If the Nyesom Wike – worshipping House of Assembly was not familiar with the word thunderbolt before now, she has come close to experiencing it. The fire – eating group of lawmakers
did not anticipate the recent turn of events. They did not conceive a situation their push to sack Governor Sinmilayi Fubara would run into it’s present difficulties. Theirs has been an age – long desire to remove the Rivers State Governor. The long – running war of attrition against the Governor underscores their sense of power. Although waged on behalf of their boss, the super minister, emperor of the federal territory, the Assembly has gotten accustomed to barking orders at the Governor and holding public mood in contempt. Who else would embark on impeachment cruise after a devastating state of emergency? Now, the bulldozing Assembly will learn to wait; will wait for the legal angles of the process to be sorted out. And the vocal membership faces a new political reality in which Fubara has been proclaimed leader of the APC in Rivers State.

The political drama in Rivers State draws our attention again to the problem of impeachment legislators. They must be in their hundreds, the number of legislative presiding officers and deputy governors toppled in the name of impeachment in twenty-five years of the Fourth Republic. This weaponisation of an instrument of political order should be seen as another low point of this democracy. It may not be obvious to the ordinary eye but the danger posed by misuse of the impeachment provision is awful. Abuse of the impeachment principle can be traumatic for those at the receiving end. It can also be a short path to instability. Observed trends show there are four broad faces of impeachment legislators, with inevitable overlapping in the characterisations.

There are the intellectually lazy legislators who seek to compensate for their poor contributions to lawmaking by seeking recognition in rather dramatic ways. Lacking in vision and direction, they are rarely initiators of impeachment plots. However, they present a ready recruitment field for the engineers of impeachment conspiracy. For the bench – warming legislator, financial inducement is not a primary consideration in supporting an impeachment move. The sense of activism is sufficient impetus. In effect, this member who may have been embarrassed by the rigorous demands of legislative business, would be making statement of personal relevance and contribution with impeachment activism.

The second type of impeachment legislator is the lawmaker ruled by superiority complex. Here, the maneuvers are mostly limited to the legislative branch, with presiding officers of the legislative house as targets. Superiority disposition predisposes individuals to believe that they are better than all others and therefore ought to be at the driving seat. People ruled by feeling of superiority complex are prone to fault – finding, and scheming. Pride and ambition would be the driving force behind impeachment exertions in this category. However, in the case of Ekiti State in 2006, hunger for executive authority by the Assembly leadership fueled the impeachment march. Desperate to achieve her mission, the State House of Assembly took a legislative ‘leap in the dark’. She sought to expand the Assembly’s powers into the investigate panel on impeachment allegations. But by constitutional dictates of section 308, the chief judge’s panel selection as well as panel resolutions are binding on the legislature.

The cash and carry lawmaker is the third face of the impeachment legislator. Tragically, for our democratic journey, this breed is in the majority right across our legislative houses. Financial inducement is considered one of the most powerful lubricants of impeachment plots. It is believed to have been employed in the removal of deputy governors who fell out with their principals. Not having a war chest, targeted deputy governors are unable to speak the esoteric language of the impeachment world. It’s no surprise that dozens of deputy governors have fallen to the impeachment blitz in the current dispensation. Some like Lagos State’s Bucknor Akerele and Abia State’s Enyinnaya Abaribe had tag of ‘impeached’ thrown after them even when they said they had resigned. And in a wonder of Nigeria’s revolving power game, Anambra State’s Okey Ude had his 2003 impeachment annulled six years later by another set of lawmakers!

With the fourth group of impeachment travellers, we enter the zone of godfather politics. The system hovers between cult and military tradition. Adherents have received what they consider significant support from a certain benefactor. Often the help is a political rise which the beneficiaries were not ordinarily entitled to. These may be influenced appointments, mouth – watering contracts, imposition as party candidates for elective offices or rigged election results. The recipients feel indebted for these favours, sometimes surrendering their free will to the strongman. Disciples of a political godfather can be fanatical in their followership. Many are warriors at their service of the boss. A group of legislators bound to a godfather by some political covenant would be tempted to see their benefactor as above the law. Where “the prince” begins to prosecute an impeachment plot, the beholden legislator – disciples will predictably put the boss’s personal interest above public interest.

In the present Rivers State face-off, the State Assembly now finds itself swimming against the tide of both public opinion and the emerging, new political order. Frontline sociopolitical movement, Pan Niger Delta Emancipation Force (PANDEF) has risen in opposition to the plan to remove the Governor and Deputy Governor of Rivers State. A broad spectrum of civil society groups ranging from ethnic unions, Church associations to organised labour have in strong terms condemned the agenda as anti people and anti Rivers State. The impeachment agenda is also anti peace. It has needlessly raised tension in Rivers State and beyond. Suspension of democratic rule under the 2025 state of emergency was illegal and unfortunate. But that fait accompli served to deescalate tension and afforded opportunities for dialogue by the various parties. Now, the House of Assembly’s offensive threatens to jettison the lessons of the impeachment experience. Intelligence reports inform that the arrows of the impeachment have already shared power and offices to themselves in a post operation structure. A self – serving impeachment will only plunge the state into a deeper mess. Have the recalcitrant lawmakers grasped the import of both the presidency and APC national leadership’s recognition of Fubara as the ruling party’s leader in the State?

Politically, the onslaught against Fubara is to say the least, a slight on the President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. It would be seen as an affront, a revolt, in some quarters. The President had developed the emergency formula as solution to the State’s crisis. Things were supposed to improve from there. By embarking on their current journey, the impeachment legislators are in effect telling the President, we reject your intervention; we reject your decision. The short – lived drama of four members who withdrew from and later rejoined the impeachment troops suggests an entrenched position by the corps. An hardline stance does not seem wise in the circumstance. It is likely to produce regrettable results. But that is a fundamental problem of politicians in the godfather zone. Blinded by personal loyalty, they often do not see the red line that may only be crossed with fatal consequences. There is a bigger picture unraveling before their very eyes but the Rivers State ‘militants’ do not seem to see it. If they’re lucky, they might just march into political oblivion. If they’re not, they may find themselves soon pleading for soft landing.