PORT HARCOURT, Rivers State (Atlantic Post) — In a letter dated 20 January 2026 to Speaker Martins Amaewhule, Justice Amadi explained that he was bound by subsisting court orders and therefore unable to act on the Assembly’s impeachment request.
He confirmed receipt of two injunctions served on 16 January 2026. One is in Suit OYHC/6/CS/2026, filed by Odu. The other is in Suit OYHC/7/CS/2026, filed by Fubara. Each names him as a defendant and expressly forbids him from “receiving, forwarding, considering … or acting” on any impeachment request from lawmakers.
Justice Amadi emphasised that Nigerian law requires strict obedience to court orders. Citing constitutional principles, he noted that “all persons and authorities are expected to obey subsisting orders of court of competent jurisdiction. This expectation stands irrespective of [their] perception of its regularity”.
He even quoted the Court of Appeal in Hon. Dele Abiodun vs. Chief Judge of Kwara State (2007). The court likened a judge ignoring an injunction to a “chief priest … turning round to desecrate the oracle.” This is a warning that such defiance voids any proceeding.
Justice Amadi further observed that the Assembly’s Speaker had already appealed the injunctions to the Court of Appeal. This invoked the doctrine of lis pendens (pending litigation). As a result, no further action can be taken until the appeal is decided.
In his view, the combination of injunctions and appeal leaves his hands “fettered.” He feels legally powerless to exercise his duty under Section 188(5) of the Constitution.
He thus pleaded with the legislature. He asked them to “be magnanimous enough to appreciate the legal position of the matter.” He urged them to hold off on the probe.
Impeachment Drive and Political Context
The refusal comes against a backdrop of a bitter political feud in Rivers State. On 8 January 2026, the Rivers Assembly triggered impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara and Deputy Odu. They allege various forms of budgetary impropriety and gross misconduct.
The motion was signed by at least 26 of 32 legislators. It accused the duo of unauthorized spending. They neglected to present the 2026 appropriation bill. Additionally, they withheld statutory allocations from the legislature. (Constitutionally, a notice of impeachment must be supported by one-third of the House, followed by a two-thirds vote to investigate.)
Impeachment experts agree that the RSHA impeachment move meets the constitutional threshold for investigation. This situation prompts Speaker Amaewhule’s request to the Chief Judge to set up the panel (as required by Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution).
Section 188 Process: Under the Nigerian Constitution, removal of a governor is a multi-step process. Key steps include:
- Presentation of written allegations (gross misconduct) by at least one-third of House members.
- A House resolution (two-thirds majority) to investigate the claims.
- Upon such resolution, the State Chief Judge must act quickly. Within seven days, they need to appoint a seven-member investigative panel. This panel should consist of “persons of unquestionable integrity”.
- The panel then has up to three months to report its findings.
- If the panel finds proven misconduct, the House must again vote by two-thirds to remove the governor.
Importantly, the Constitution also forbids judicial interference in these proceedings (Section 188(10)). However, courts often intervene through injunctions. They do this to preserve order during ongoing processes.
Assembly Allegations:
The impeachment notices against Fubara/Odu charge “gross misconduct” as defined in Section 188(11). They cite financial irregularities and failure of governance.
In practical terms, the lawmakers fault Fubara for budget mismanagement and withholding funds; they fault Odu for alleged culpability as deputy.
(Such conflicts are not new in Rivers politics: in 2025 under Fubara, a showdown led to an emergency rule and protracted legal battles. According to reports, thousands of millions of naira meant for projects were never delivered, fueling suspicion and enmity.)
Legal Constraints and Judicial Precedents
Justice Amadi’s stance highlights an essential constitutional principle: courts and judges can’t be circumvented. The 1999 Constitution explicitly enjoins all branches of government to obey its provisions.
Section 1(1) declares that it is the “duty and responsibility of all organs of government… to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this Constitution”.
By extension, judicial power is supreme on matters within the courts’ jurisdiction (Section 6). This means a binding court order must be obeyed until set aside. As Amadi wrote, “constitutionalism and the Rule of Law are the bedrock of democracy.” These principles cannot be ignored, even if one questions an order’s merit.
Nigeria’s jurisprudence reinforces this point. In the Kwara case Hon. Dele Abiodun vs. The Chief Judge of Kwara State (2007), the Court of Appeal invalidated an impeachment panel. This panel had been constituted in defiance of an injunction.
The appellate court rebuked the judge for creating a scenario where the “custodian of the oracle” desecrated it. It emphasized that any person must respect ongoing court orders. This includes even a Chief Judge.
Likewise, several high-profile impeachments have been overturned for procedural flaws. For example, Ekiti’s Ayo Fayose was impeached in 2006. The Supreme Court voided his removal. They ruled the process “unlawful”.
Anambra’s Peter Obi was reinstated after the Court of Appeal found that due process was not followed in 2006.
Plateau’s Joshua Dariye similarly regained his office in 2007 when the Supreme Court held his impeachment lacked quorum.
In fact, only a few governors (notably Adamawa’s Murtala Nyako in 2014) have ever been successfully removed without reversal.
As one analysis notes, “impeachments have remained relatively rare in Nigeria… Many cases were later overturned by the courts” .
These precedents make clear that violating an injunction can nullify an entire process. Justice Amadi warned against moving ahead in defiance of the orders. He stated it would “invalidate the entire process.” He cited the Court of Appeal’s decision on the Abiodun case.
By extension, the doctrine of lis pendens means the current appeals in the Rivers case must be resolved first. In short, the law places the Assembly’s ambitions on hold until judicial questions are settled.
Awaiting the Courts
For now, Rivers’ impeachment drama is stalled in the courts rather than the assembly. The Speaker has appealed the high court injunctions to the Court of Appeal, adding a further layer of legal review. Until that appeal is decided, Chief Judge Amadi has effectively declined to act.
“In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered,” he concluded, saying he is “legally disabled at this point” from forming any panel.
His message to the lawmakers was firm but measured: adhere to the law or risk throwing out the process altogether.
This outcome underscores the power of Nigeria’s judiciary as a check on legislature and executive alike. Even if the Assembly believes the allegations, courts have repeatedly insisted on strict compliance with legal procedures.
Many observers now expect the Court of Appeal to make a final ruling on the injunctions soon. In the meantime, Justice Amadi’s intervention has temporarily protected Governor Fubara (and Odu) from the impeachment process.
Whether the Assembly will wait patiently or press on in defiance remains to be seen. For now, the rule of law is the defining factor. The Chief Judge stressed that it must be obeyed. This applies even in politically charged times.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
