Constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, Dr Festus Ogwuche, has described the Rivers State High Court’s interim injunction restraining the impeachment of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu, as a constitutionally valid and prudent legal move, insisting that impeachment proceedings remain subject to judicial scrutiny when due process is threatened.
Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Sunday, Dr Ogwuche said the decision by the governor and his deputy to approach the court for an ex parte order was not only lawful but necessary to preserve constitutional order.
“I would say it is a smart move. It is a constitutional process acknowledged by the Constitution. They sought an ex parte application, and an ex parte order was granted by the court,” he said.
He explained that courts have jurisdiction to interrogate impeachment processes where there is evidence of procedural infractions, noting that impeachment is time-bound and strictly regulated by the Constitution.
“The court has the jurisdiction and power to look into whether the impeachment process was properly carried out. If there is any infraction with the constitutional procedure, no matter how little, the entire process can be invalidated,” Ogwuche stated.
Clarifying the legal nature of the injunction, the constitutional lawyer stressed that the ex parte order was merely preservatory and designed to maintain the status quo pending a full hearing.
“The ex parte injunction is to keep things on hold, at least for now, so that the court can examine the nitty-gritty of the application and ensure that due process is followed,” he said.
Dr Ogwuche described impeachment as a grave constitutional exercise that must never be trivialised or weaponised for political vendettas.
“The constitutional process for impeachment is not a child’s playground. It is deep, sacred, and must be treated with the highest level of seriousness and respect,” he said.
Drawing from judicial precedent, he cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of former Adamawa State governor, Murtala Nyako.
“The Supreme Court made it clear that impeachment must be treated with every degree of seriousness. It is not something to be invoked simply to visit vendetta on a governor, blackmail him, or use as a threat whenever he acts contrary to certain interests,” Ogwuche said.
Addressing arguments that courts are barred from intervening in impeachment matters under Section 188(10) of the Constitution, Ogwuche rejected that interpretation, clarifying the scope of judicial restraint.
“Every constitutional process can be questioned. What Section 188(10) talks about is when the entire process has been concluded without any infraction. At that point, courts cannot question whether the impeachment was right or wrong,” he explained.
“But where the process is ongoing and yet to be determined, nothing stops the court from questioning its validity and ensuring that it conforms with the provisions of the Constitution,” he added.
He lamented what he described as the casual deployment of impeachment proceedings in Nigeria, contrasting it with practices in more established democracies.
“It is regrettable that impeachment is invoked at will against governors in Nigeria. In the United States, throughout its democratic history, only 11 impeachment processes have ever been initiated, and only eight succeeded,” Ogwuche said.
“Here, impeachment is raised anyhow, without restraint,” he added.
According to him, courts are empowered to examine every procedural aspect of impeachment, including service of notices, adherence to timelines, and compliance with constitutional requirements.
“The courts can determine whether the notice of allegations was properly served, whether the House of Assembly complied with its own rules, and whether the entire process conforms with the Constitution,” he said.
“That jurisdiction exists to protect the civil rights and obligations of the governor, the legislators, and ultimately, the people of Rivers State.”
Reacting to concerns over the role of the Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, Ogwuche insisted that judicial officers are bound to obey subsisting court orders.
“If it reaches a stage where the Chief Judge is required to act in line with the Constitution, he cannot refuse. However, where there is a subsisting court order restraining him, he cannot go ahead,” he stated.
“He is the head of the judiciary and must be the first to respect court orders. He cannot defy an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, no matter how wrong he believes it is.”
He explained that the lawful remedy for disputing such an order lies in approaching the court to have it set aside.
“If parties believe the court lacks jurisdiction or that the order was wrongly made, they must apply for it to be set aside on recognised legal grounds,” Ogwuche said.
“But so long as the order subsists, whether it is right or wrong, the Chief Judge of Rivers State is bound to obey it. He cannot do otherwise.”
Dr Ogwuche concluded by lamenting the recurring political instability in Rivers State, warning that the ongoing crisis continues to undermine governance and hurt ordinary citizens.
“Rivers State is beginning to resemble a theatre of the absurd, and it is unfortunate. We have seen repeated interventions by the President and rulings by the Supreme Court, yet the crisis persists,” he said.
“Ultimately, the people are the ones suffering, while political gladiators continue to draw their swords.”
Boluwatife Enome
Follow us on:
