(DDM) – The impeachment crisis rocking Rivers State took a dramatic turn after the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Chibuzor Simeon Amadi, refused to constitute a seven-member panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy.
Justice Amadi firmly halted the process in a formal response to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, citing existing court orders that expressly restrain him from setting up such a panel.
The Chief Judge made it clear that the judiciary could not act in violation of subsisting legal directives, regardless of political pressure or legislative urgency.
According to his response, the Rivers Assembly leadership is already entangled in ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the same impeachment dispute.
Justice Amadi further noted that the Speaker of the House has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging earlier judicial pronouncements linked to the crisis.
He stressed that taking steps to constitute an impeachment panel while an appeal is pending would amount to judicial recklessness and institutional overreach.
The refusal effectively freezes the impeachment process, at least for now, and represents a major setback for lawmakers pushing to remove the governor.
The political tension escalated after 26 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly issued an impeachment notice accusing Governor Fubara of gross misconduct.
The notice followed months of intense political rivalry and a power struggle within the state, widely viewed as a fallout from internal divisions between the executive arm and factions within the legislature.
Governor Fubara, who assumed office amid promises of stability and inclusive governance, has faced persistent opposition from lawmakers loyal to rival political interests.
The Rivers political landscape has remained volatile since the breakdown of relations between the governor and key figures who once controlled the state’s political machinery.
Legal analysts say the Chief Judge’s decision underscores the central role of the judiciary in preventing constitutional abuse during politically motivated impeachment attempts.
They argue that impeachment is a grave constitutional process that must strictly follow the rule of law, not partisan calculations.
Observers also note that Nigerian courts have increasingly intervened in impeachment disputes to curb legislative excesses, especially when due process is threatened.
The Rivers crisis mirrors similar impeachment battles in other states, where courts have stepped in to restrain assemblies accused of acting outside constitutional boundaries.
For Governor Fubara, the decision provides temporary relief but does not end the political storm surrounding his administration.
Analysts warn that the conflict may intensify through legal channels as lawmakers pursue their appeal at the appellate court.
The unfolding events also raise broader questions about the use of impeachment as a political weapon rather than a constitutional safeguard.
As the legal battle continues, attention now shifts to the Court of Appeal, whose eventual ruling could redefine the balance of power in Rivers State.
For now, Justice Amadi’s stance has reinforced judicial independence and delayed what could have become one of the most controversial impeachments in recent Nigerian political history.
