By Kparobo Ehvwubare

Introduction

A constitutional and legal controversy has emerged in Rivers State following a request by the Rivers State House of Assembly for the Chief Judge of the State to appoint a seven-man investigative panel pursuant to Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The request, dated 16th January 2026, seeks to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against the Executive Governor of Rivers State, His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, GSSRS.

However, this move has been complicated by the issuance of two separate interim injunctions by a court of competent jurisdiction, restraining the Chief Judge of Rivers State from taking any step in furtherance of the request pending the determination of the suits before the court.

Crux to the Dispute

On 16th January 2026, the Rivers State House of Assembly transmitted two letters to the office of the Chief Judge, requesting the constitution of a seven-man panel to investigate alleged gross misconduct against the Governor, in line with Section 188(5) of the Constitution. These letters were reportedly accompanied by voluminous documents and based on a resolution of the House pursuant to Section 188(4) of the Constitution.

Simultaneously, legal actions were instituted challenging the legality and constitutionality of the impeachment process initiated by the House of Assembly.

Court Actions

Two suits were filed before the High Court, and interim injunctions were granted on 16th January 2026:

1. Suit No: OYHC/6/CS/2026
   Her Excellency, Prof. (Ms.) Ngozi Nma Odu, DSSRS
   Vs.
   The Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule, DSSRS (Speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly) & 32 Others
2. Suit No: OYHC/7/CS/2026
   His Excellency, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, GSSRS
   Vs.
   The Rt. Hon. Martin Chike Amaewhule, DSSRS (Speaker, Rivers State House of Assembly) & 32 Others

In both suits, the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State was listed as the 32nd Defendant/Respondent.

Nature of the Interim Injunctions

Paragraph 1 of the interim orders expressly restrained the Chief Judge of Rivers State from:

• Receiving
• Forwarding
• Considering
• Acting on

any request, resolution, articles of impeachment, or other documents or communications from the 1st to the 27th and 31st Defendants, for the purpose of constituting a panel to investigate the alleged misconduct against the Claimant/Applicant, for a period of seven days.

The certified true copies of the interim orders were served on the office of the Chief Judge on the same 16th January 2026.

Official Response from the Judiciary

In a letter dated 20th January 2026 and issued from the Chief Judge’s Chambers, Rivers State Judiciary, the Chief Judge formally acknowledged receipt of the House of Assembly’s request. The letter clearly referenced the subsisting interim court orders and emphasized the obligation of all authorities and persons to obey court orders in line with the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

The Chief Judge stated that until the interim injunctions are set aside or the substantive suits are finally determined, compliance with the request to constitute a seven-man panel would amount to a violation of a subsisting court order.

Legal Precedent Cited

To reinforce this position, the Judiciary cited the Court of Appeal decision in Hon. Dele Abiodun vs. The Hon. Chief Judge of Kwara State & 3 Ors (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 109), 109–169. In that case, the Court of Appeal condemned the action of a Chief Judge who constituted a panel despite a subsisting restraining order, voiding the entire proceedings and issuing strong judicial rebuke.

The court memorably likened such conduct to that of “a chief priest and custodian of an oracle turning round to desecrate the oracle,” underscoring the sanctity of judicial obedience to the law.

Implications for Governance and Democracy

The situation raises serious constitutional questions about the balance of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, as well as the limits of impeachment procedures under Nigerian law. Legal analysts warn that any action taken in defiance of court orders could not only be nullified but also deepen political instability in the state.

The controversy also highlights the judiciary’s critical role as the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law, especially in politically sensitive matters such as impeachment proceedings.

Conclusion

As of the time of this report, the interim injunctions issued on 16th January 2026 remain in force. Consequently, the Chief Judge of Rivers State is legally restrained from constituting any investigative panel pursuant to the request of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

The final outcome now rests on the determination of the pending suits before the court. Until then, constitutional compliance, respect for judicial authority, and adherence to the rule of law remain paramount in resolving the unfolding political and legal standoff in Rivers State.