The Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, has declined a request by the Rivers State House of Assembly to constitute a judicial panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct levelled against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu, citing subsisting court orders that restrain him from taking such action.
The decision, conveyed in a formal letter dated January 20, 2026, and addressed to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Martin Chike Amaewhule, represents a major development in the escalating political and constitutional crisis in Rivers State. Justice Amadi made it clear that his refusal was not discretionary but compelled by existing interim injunctions issued by competent courts.
According to the Chief Judge, two separate interim court orders, which were served on his office on January 16, expressly restrain him from receiving, processing, considering, or acting upon any request connected to the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Assembly against the governor and his deputy.
“In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered, as there are subsisting interim orders of injunction and appeal against the said orders,” Justice Amadi stated in the letter. “I am therefore legally disabled at this point from exercising my duties under Section 188(5) of the Constitution in the instant.”
The request from the House of Assembly sought the constitution of a seven member judicial panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Fubara and his deputy, in line with the provisions of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Under the constitutional procedure for impeachment, once the House resolves to investigate such allegations, the Chief Judge is required to set up an independent panel to conduct the probe.
However, Justice Amadi stressed that the presence of subsisting court orders has created a legal barrier that prevents him from performing that constitutional function at this time. He further noted that the Speaker of the House himself has already appealed the interim injunctions at the Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt.
Invoking the legal doctrine of lis pendens, the Chief Judge explained that once a matter is before a court of competent jurisdiction and on appeal, all parties are required to maintain the status quo until the court reaches a determination.
“The doctrine of lis pendens enjoins all parties to await the outcome of the appeal before any further step is taken,” Justice Amadi noted, adding that any action taken in defiance of subsisting court orders would amount to a breach of the rule of law.
He emphasised that obedience to court orders, whether convenient or not, is a cornerstone of constitutional governance and judicial integrity. As such, he said, he is bound by oath to respect and enforce the decisions of the courts and cannot act in a manner that would undermine the judiciary or the legal process.
The Chief Judge’s position has effectively stalled the impeachment process initiated by the Rivers State House of Assembly, at least pending the resolution of the appeal currently before the Court of Appeal.
The impeachment saga began on January 8, 2026, when the Rivers State House of Assembly formally commenced impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara and Deputy Governor Odu. During plenary, the Leader of the House, Major Jack, read out a notice of allegations of gross misconduct against the governor, which was reportedly endorsed by 26 members of the Assembly.
Following the reading of the allegations, the House adopted a motion to proceed with the impeachment process in line with constitutional provisions. On January 16, lawmakers went a step further by voting in favour of a motion requesting the Chief Judge of the state to constitute a judicial panel to investigate the allegations against the governor and his deputy.
The allegations of gross misconduct outlined by the lawmakers are wide ranging and touch on critical aspects of governance and public finance. They include claims of budgetary impropriety, failure by the governor to present the 2026 Appropriation Bill to the House of Assembly, unauthorised expenditure of public funds, and the alleged withholding of statutory allocations due to the legislature.
Other accusations reportedly relate to actions and omissions by the executive arm that the lawmakers argue undermine legislative authority and violate constitutional and statutory provisions.
Supporters of the impeachment move within the Assembly argue that the allegations are serious and warrant thorough investigation in the interest of transparency, accountability, and constitutional order. They insist that the process is lawful and aimed at protecting democratic institutions in the state.
On the other hand, allies of Governor Fubara have consistently described the impeachment attempt as politically motivated and a continuation of the deep political rift that has plagued Rivers State since the breakdown of relations between the governor and key figures in the state’s political structure.
Legal challenges were promptly filed following the initiation of the impeachment process, resulting in the interim injunctions that now constrain the Chief Judge’s actions. Although details of the suits were not elaborated in Justice Amadi’s letter, the orders reportedly restrain all parties, including the judiciary, from taking further steps in relation to the impeachment pending the determination of the substantive issues before the courts.
By acknowledging the existence of these injunctions and the pending appeal, the Chief Judge has aligned himself firmly with the principle of judicial restraint and strict adherence to due process.
Legal analysts say the development underscores the complex interplay between the executive, legislature, and judiciary in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. While the Constitution provides a clear framework for the impeachment of a governor, the involvement of the courts often introduces additional layers of legal scrutiny, particularly where questions arise about procedure, jurisdiction, or the protection of fundamental rights.
The immediate implication of Justice Amadi’s decision is that the House of Assembly cannot proceed with the investigative phase of the impeachment without first overcoming the legal hurdles posed by the subsisting court orders. Until the Court of Appeal rules on the matter, the status quo is expected to remain.
As Rivers State watches closely, the unfolding situation is widely seen as a test of constitutionalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Whether the impeachment process will resume or be permanently halted will largely depend on the outcome of the pending legal proceedings and the willingness of all parties to abide by judicial decisions.
For now, the Chief Judge has made his position clear: without the lifting or resolution of the existing court orders, he is legally constrained from constituting the panel sought by the House of Assembly, reinforcing the primacy of the judiciary in the resolution of constitutional disputes.
