Due Process And Constitutional Order In Rivers State

**The salient point

By Sammy Etuk – Uk

The legal action instituted by Siminalayi Fubara, Governor of Rivers State, and his Deputy, Ngozi Nma Odu, comes up for hearing on 23 January 2026, following the expiration of the seven-day interim order earlier granted by the court. The matter is before the Rivers State High Court, sitting at the Port Harcourt Judicial Division, with Justice F. A. Fiberesima presiding. The court is expected to hear arguments on the substantive application arising from the ongoing impeachment process initiated by the State House of Assembly.

At the centre of the case are two clear demands. First, the Governor and Deputy Governor ask the court to restrain further impeachment actions until it is determined whether the procedure prescribed under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution has been strictly followed. Second, they seek declaratory reliefs to the effect that any impeachment process carried out without proper service of allegations, reasonable opportunity to respond, and observance of fair hearing requirements would be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore without legal effect. These demands do not seek to place impeachment beyond reach, but to subject it to the procedural safeguards expressly provided by law.

From a constitutional standpoint, the issues raised are likely to be assessed on established legal principles rather than public opinion. Nigerian courts have consistently held that impeachment is a legal process governed by precise steps and timelines. Where questions arise regarding service, sequence, or procedural compliance, courts have intervened to ensure constitutional order is maintained pending full determination. On this basis, the claims advanced by the Governor and Deputy Governor fall within recognised constitutional arguments, regardless of competing interpretations expressed outside the judicial process.

It is, however, noteworthy that some constitutional lawyers from the state, appearing on national and international television platforms, have offered interpretations that are not fully aligned with constitutional provisions or settled judicial authority, even where clear precedent exists. While public legal discussion is legitimate, constitutional interpretation ultimately rests on the text of the Constitution and binding judicial decisions, rather than broadcast commentary.

Finally, arguments suggesting that the case ought to have been filed at the Federal High Court are misplaced. The Federal High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to specific federal subject matters expressly outlined in the Constitution. Impeachment proceedings involving a state governor, the actions of a State House of Assembly, and the constitutional role of a state chief judge fall within the jurisdiction of a State High Court. The decision to file the action at the Rivers State High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, was therefore procedurally and constitutionally appropriate.