Rivers State Crisis: Tension Continues in Rivers State as House of Assembly Urges Chief Judge to Set Up Panel to Investigate Governor Siminalayi Fubara

The political atmosphere in the oil-rich Niger Delta region has reached a fever pitch once again. In a dramatic escalation of the Rivers State crisis, the House of Assembly has officially urged the Chief Judge of the State to constitute a panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Siminalayi Fubara. This move comes in direct defiance of a subsisting court order that explicitly halted the impeachment proceedings, plunging the state into a deeper constitutional and political quagmire.

As the standoff between the legislative and executive arms of government intensifies, the role of the judiciary has become the focal point of a battle that threatens the stability of one of Nigeria’s most critical economic hubs.

The Latest Flashpoint: Assembly vs. Judiciary

The crisis took a dangerous turn on Friday when the faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule, passed a resolution requiring the Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Amadi, to set up a seven-man investigative panel. This request is a critical procedural step under Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which precedes the potential removal of a governor from office.

However, this legislative maneuver was executed just hours after a Rivers State High Court, sitting in Oyigbo and presided over by Justice F.A. Fiberesima, issued an interim injunction. The court order specifically restrained the Speaker, the House of Assembly, and the Clerk from furthering the impeachment process. Furthermore, it barred the Chief Judge from receiving or acting upon any request to constitute such a panel.

This clash of authority has created a situation of "anarchy in waiting," where the legislature claims constitutional immunity from judicial interference in impeachment proceedings, while the judiciary asserts its power to check procedural illegality.

The Court Order Explained

The interim injunction granted by Justice Fiberesima was in response to a motion ex parte filed by Governor Fubara and his Deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu. The ruling was unambiguous:

• Restraint on the Assembly: The lawmakers were barred from serving any impeachment notice or transmitting any resolution to the Chief Judge.
• Restraint on the Chief Judge: Justice Amadi was prohibited from "receiving, forwarding, considering, or in any way acting on" any correspondence from the Assembly regarding the investigation of the Governor.
• Service of Process: The court allowed for substituted service, meaning the order could be pasted at the entrance of the Assembly quarters, ensuring the defendants could not claim ignorance of the ruling.

Despite this legal blockade, the Assembly’s leadership maintains that the Chief Judge has already acknowledged receipt of their notice, signaling their intent to bulldoze through the judicial barriers.

The Constitutional Dilemma: Section 188

To understand the gravity of the Rivers State crisis, one must delve into the constitutional framework governing impeachment in Nigeria. Section 188 is often described as the "nuclear option" for checking executive excesses, but it is also a double-edged sword often weaponized for political vendettas.

The Procedure

The process requires strictly defined steps:

1. Notice of Allegations: Signed by at least one-third of the House members.
2. Service of Notice: The Speaker must serve the Governor within seven days.
3. Response: The Governor has a right of reply.
4. Resolution to Investigate: A motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority to request an investigation.
5. The Panel: The Chief Judge appoints seven people of "unquestionable integrity" to investigate.
6. The Verdict: If the panel finds the Governor guilty, the House can remove him with a two-thirds vote.

The "Ouster Clause" Controversy

The Amaewhule-led Assembly relies heavily on Section 188(10), which states: "No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court."

They argue this clause gives them absolute immunity from court orders regarding impeachment. However, legal scholars and historical precedents suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, in landmark cases involving Rashidi Ladoja (Oyo State) and Peter Obi (Anambra State), established that the "ouster clause" only applies if the legislature has strictly followed the procedure laid out in the Constitution. If the Assembly violates the pre-conditions such as failing to serve the Governor personally or sitting in an unauthorized venue the courts have the jurisdiction to intervene and declare the process a nullity.

For more insights on Nigerian political structures and legal battles, you can explore the in-depth analysis on Naija Rave.

The Political Undertones: Wike vs. Fubara

Behind the legalese and constitutional arguments lies a raw power struggle. The Rivers State crisis is fundamentally a battle for the soul of the state between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, who currently serves as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The Breakdown of a Political Family

Fubara, once the Accountant General under Wike’s administration, was handpicked by Wike to succeed him. The expectation was a continuity of governance and loyalty. However, barely months into his tenure, cracks emerged. Fubara’s moves to assert independence reshuffling the cabinet, reviewing contracts, and engaging with stakeholders outside Wike’s camp were perceived as a betrayal by the pro-Wike faction.

This rift split the House of Assembly into two:

• The Pro-Wike Faction: Led by Martin Amaewhule, holding the majority. They defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in a controversial move that led to declarations of their seats being vacant a matter still contested in courts.
• The Pro-Fubara Faction: Originally led by Edison Ehie (who later resigned to become Chief of Staff) and now by Victor Oko-Jumbo. This smaller group argues they are the only legitimate lawmakers following the defection of their colleagues.

The impeachment move is widely seen as the Wike camp’s ultimate strategy to remove Fubara and reclaim total control of the state’s political machinery.

The Role of the Chief Judge: A Critical Juncture

All eyes are now on the Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi. He finds himself in an unenviable position, caught between a rock and a hard place.

If he obeys the House of Assembly and sets up the panel, he risks validating a process that a fellow judge has expressly forbidden. This could trigger a crisis of confidence within the judiciary and potentially lead to charges of judicial misconduct.

If he obeys the High Court order and refuses to set up the panel, he faces the wrath of the legislature, who may accuse him of obstructing their constitutional duties.

This scenario echoes the political turbulence seen in other states, where the judiciary often becomes the final arbiter in executive-legislative feuds. The integrity of the Rivers State judiciary is on trial, and the Chief Judge’s decision will likely determine the trajectory of peace in the state.

Historical Precedents of Impeachment in Nigeria

The Rivers State crisis is not an isolated event in Nigeria’s democratic history. Reviewing past impeachments provides a roadmap for how this might unfold.

The Ladoja Precedent (2006)

In Oyo State, Governor Rashidi Ladoja was impeached by a faction of lawmakers loyal to a political godfather. The Supreme Court eventually reinstated him, ruling that the process was flawed because the lawmakers did not form the required two-thirds majority and sat in a hotel rather than the official Assembly complex. This case cemented the principle that courts can intervene if the constitution is violated.

The Peter Obi Case (2006)

In Anambra State, Peter Obi was impeached at 5:00 AM by a faction of lawmakers. The Court of Appeal nullified the impeachment, stating that the hurry to remove him violated his right to a fair hearing and the procedural timelines mandated by Section 188.

The Nyako Removal (2014)

Governor Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State was successfully impeached and removed. However, years later, the court declared the removal illegal and ordered the payment of his salaries and entitlements, though he could not return to office as his tenure had elapsed.

These cases serve as a warning to the Rivers Assembly: a "successful" impeachment today can be overturned by the courts tomorrow, rendering all subsequent actions including the swearing-in of a replacement null and void.

Economic Implications of the Crisis

Political instability is the enemy of economic progress. Rivers State is the hub of Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, hosting multinationals, refineries, and major ports. The protracted Rivers State crisis is already sending jittery signals to investors.

1. Budget Delays: The dispute over which faction of the Assembly is legitimate has complicated the passing of the state budget. A budget passed by the pro-Fubara faction was annulled by a Federal High Court, leaving the executive without a clear appropriation law.
2. Security Concerns: Political tension often spills over into street violence. With rival protests occurring and threats of shutting down oil facilities, there is a real risk of a breakdown in law and order, which would affect oil production and national revenue.
3. Governance Paralysis: With the Governor fighting for his political survival, administrative attention is diverted from critical infrastructure projects, healthcare, and education.

Readers interested in the broader economic impact of political instability in Nigeria can find detailed reports on Naija Rave.

The "Gross Misconduct" Allegations

The Assembly’s call for an investigation cites "gross misconduct." But what does this entail? Under the Nigerian Constitution, gross misconduct is defined vaguely as "a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct."

This subjective definition gives the Assembly immense latitude. The allegations against Fubara reportedly include:

• Spending funds without legislative approval (due to the budget impasse).
• Failure to implement resolutions passed by the Amaewhule-led Assembly.
• Disobedience to the 1999 Constitution regarding the funding of the Assembly.

Governor Fubara’s defense rests on the illegitimacy of the lawmakers. His camp argues that by defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC while the PDP had no internal division, the 27 lawmakers automatically lost their seats under Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, in Fubara’s view, their resolutions are void ab initio (invalid from the start).

Public Reaction and Civil Society

The Rivers State crisis has galvanized public opinion. Civil society organizations (CSOs), legal bodies like the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and youth groups have weighed in.

• Legal Experts: Many senior lawyers have warned against the "gangsterism" of disobeying court orders. They argue that until an appellate court sets aside Justice Fiberesima’s injunction, it must be obeyed.
• The Electorate: There is a palpable sense of fatigue among the citizens of Rivers State. Having witnessed years of political violence, many are calling for a truce to allow governance to proceed.
• Ethnic Dimensions: The crisis also risks igniting ethnic tensions. Governor Fubara is from the Ijaw ethnic group, while Minister Wike is Ikwerre. Leaders from the Ijaw nation have warned against any illegal removal of their son, adding a volatile ethnic layer to the political dispute.

What Next for Rivers State?

As the deadline for the Chief Judge to act approaches, several scenarios are possible:

1. The Panel is Set Up: If the Chief Judge defies the court order and sets up the panel, the impeachment will proceed rapidly. Fubara would likely be removed, and the Deputy Governor (if not also impeached) or the Speaker would take over. This would trigger an immediate Supreme Court battle.
2. The Chief Judge Declines: If Justice Amadi obeys the court order, the Assembly may attempt to suspend or remove him (a complex process requiring the National Judicial Council) or simply appoint a panel through a "acting" capacity, leading to dual authorities and chaos.
3. Presidential Intervention: President Bola Tinubu has previously attempted to broker peace between Wike and Fubara. A renewed, more decisive intervention from the Presidency might be the only political solution to de-escalate the tension.

Conclusion

The Rivers State crisis is a litmus test for Nigeria’s democracy. It challenges the supremacy of the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the stability of state institutions. The House of Assembly’s urging of the Chief Judge to investigate Governor Fubara, despite a court order, pushes the state into uncharted constitutional waters.

While the politicians fight for supremacy, the ordinary people of Rivers State bear the brunt of stalled development and rising uncertainty. Whether the rule of law will prevail over political might remains the defining question of this saga.

For continuous updates on this developing story and other major news across Nigeria, keep visiting Naija Rave.

---

Note: This analysis is based on the current constitutional framework and the latest events reported in Rivers State as of January 2026.