Legal experts and practitioners have welcomed the Rivers State High Court’s interim injunction halting further steps in the impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Nma Odu, describing the decision as a vital affirmation of constitutional due process and judicial oversight.
Following and ruling delivered on January 16, 2026, by Justice Florence Fiberisima sitting in the Oyigbo division, the ruling responded to ex parte applications filed by the governor and deputy in suits OYHC/7/CS/2026 and OYHC/6/CS/2026. The court restrained the Speaker, Clerk, and other parties from transmitting impeachment documents to the Chief Judge or proceeding to empanel an investigative committee, while allowing substituted service by posting the order at the Assembly complex gate. The substantive motion is now set for hearing on January 23, 2026.
The Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners, representing more than 1,500 legislative lawyers nationwide, has publicly commended Justice Fiberisima’s intervention. The group views the order as faithfully applying the principles established by the Supreme Court in the landmark Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) decision, which struck down the impeachment of Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja for procedural irregularities.
That judgment clarified that impeachment exercises must strictly comply with constitutional stipulations—including personal service of allegations or court-sanctioned substituted service—and that judicial review remains permissible where substantial breaches occur, notwithstanding the ouster provision in Section 188(10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Analysts point to multiple alleged defects in the Assembly’s process. Chief among them is the reported failure to effect personal service of the notice of allegations on Governor Fubara, without first securing judicial approval for an alternative method. Additionally, certain charges of gross misconduct—particularly the purported delay in submitting the 2026 Appropriation Bill and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework—are seen as overlooking the legal consequences of the state of emergency declared by President Bola Tinubu between March and September 2025.
Also see: Court Slams Brakes on Fubara Impeachment, Issues Interim Injunction
During that six-month period, when the governor was suspended and normal administration disrupted, force majeure doctrines would ordinarily excuse performance obligations, rendering such delays non-actionable as misconduct.
Constitutional scholars stress that the principle of checks and balances embedded in Nigeria’s presidential system empowers the judiciary to scrutinize legislative conduct whenever an arm of government is accused of violating constitutional norms. This limited review safeguards against abuse and ensures impeachment serves genuine accountability rather than political expediency.
The Assembly has countered by asserting that Section 188(10) creates an absolute bar to judicial interference and that the Chief Judge has already acknowledged receipt of the impeachment notice, signaling intent to move forward. However, the prevailing legal opinion holds that proven procedural or substantive infractions strip such proceedings of blanket immunity, opening the door for measured judicial examination.
The temporary restraint offers critical respite in the midst of prolonged political turbulence in Rivers State. With the next hearing approaching, attention now turns to how the court will weigh the full arguments, a ruling that could significantly shape the balance of power, governance stability, and respect for constitutionalism in one of Nigeria’s most strategically important states.
