Why Rivers Assembly’s “No Court Can Stop Us” Claim Rings Hollow -By Isaac Asabor

The Rivers State House of Assembly’s insistence that “no court order can stop Fubara’s impeachment” is not only historically dishonest, it is legally reckless. Nigeria has been here before, many times, and each time absolutist claims like this have collapsed under judicial scrutiny.

The short answer is this: courts have stopped impeachments in Nigeria before, repeatedly, and will do so again where due process is violated. Any legislature pretending otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately misleading the public.

The Assembly leans heavily on Section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution, which bars courts from questioning the proceedings of a House in impeachment matters. What they conveniently omit is the settled judicial interpretation of that clause.

Nigerian courts have consistently held that Section 188(10) does not confer immunity for illegality, procedural fraud, or constitutional breaches. It only protects properly conducted impeachment proceedings. Once due process is compromised, courts are not just allowed to intervene; they are duty-bound to.

The Supreme Court has made this point so often that continuing to argue otherwise amounts to willful ignorance.

In fact, history does not support Rivers Assembly’s claim, as there are facts can be recalled in this context to pooh-pooh its claim that no court can stop Fubara’s impeachment. Unfortunately, the Assembly thinks Nigerians have forgotten.

First, Rashidi Ladoja who was the governor of Oyo State from 2006 to 2007.  The Oyo State House of Assembly impeached Governor Ladoja in a controversial process conducted in a hotel with a minority of lawmakers. The courts stepped in. In A.G. Federation v. Ladoja and subsequent rulings, the Supreme Court reinstated Ladoja, holding that the impeachment was unconstitutional. The courts stopped it. Reversed it. Nullified it.

In a similar vein, the Anambra House of Assembly impeached Peter Obi who was the governor of Anambra State two decades ago, and the courts intervened, declared the impeachment unconstitutional, and restored him to office. The Court of Appeal did not pretend, as Section 188 (10) was a magic wand. Again, courts stopped and reversed an impeachment.

Also in a similar vein, eight lawmakers out of 24 impeached Joshua Dariye who was the gpvernor pf Plateau State from 2006. The Supreme Court later ruled the impeachment invalid and restored him as governor. The Judicial intervention was no doubt decisive. 

In Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose then the governor of the State had his impeachment thrown out by the courts due to constitutional breaches in the process. Without a doubt, the judgment remains another legislative overreach corrected by the judiciary.

In addition, Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State, challenged his impeachment in court, and although the matter became overtaken by political events, the judiciary made it clear that impeachment processes are reviewable where due process is in question.

The pattern is unmistakable: legislatures that cut corners lose in court. Ex parte orders are not the Issue, Illegality is. Given the foregoing backdrop, it is unfortunate that the Rivers Assembly is attempting to shift the argument by raising alarm about ex parte orders from “outside the Port Harcourt judicial division.” That is a distraction.

The real issue is not where a court order comes from, but whether constitutional safeguards are respected: Was the notice of allegations properly served? Was the required majority met at every stage? Was the panel lawfully constituted? Were timelines strictly followed? Were the accused officials given fair hearing? Once any of these fail, a court injunction is not an insult to democracy; it is its correction mechanism.

Jurisdictional gymnastics will not save a flawed process.  The Assembly’s claim that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction over whether a governor’s tenure has ceased is also misleading. While certain post-impeachment questions may fall under federal jurisdiction, state High Courts retain the power to interpret the Constitution and restrain illegal actions, especially at interim stages. Nigerian courts have never accepted the argument that legislatures operate in a constitutional vacuum until impeachment is completed.

That argument has failed every time it was tested. Impeachment is not a political weapon, it is a legal process.  Bluntly put, impeachment is not self-help. It is not brute majority rule. It is not an act of vengeance dressed up as constitutional duty.

Every time Nigerian lawmakers have treated impeachment as a political hammer rather than a legal scalpel, the courts have responded with injunctions, reversals, and reinstatements. Rivers State will not be an exception.

On a final note, it is not out of place to opine that the Rivers Assembly can posture. It can issue statements. It can threaten. However, it cannot rewrite Nigeria’s constitutional history.

Courts have stopped impeachments before. Courts have reversed impeachments before. Courts will intervene again if the process against Governor Siminalayi Fubara violates the Constitution. Pretending otherwise does not strengthen democracy, it exposes institutional arrogance. In addition, in Nigeria’s constitutional order, arrogance has never survived judicial review.