By Emeka Amaefula
IMPEACHMENT, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE RIVERS CRISIS: WHY THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY STRUCK
The decision of the Rivers State House of Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara is neither an act of political vendetta nor a legislative overreach, as some commentators have suggested, but a constitutionally sanctioned response to serious allegations bordering on gross misconduct. At the core of the controversy is the persistent expenditure of public funds without legislative appropriation, an action that directly affronts the supremacy of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and undermines the doctrine of separation of powers upon which democratic governance is founded.
Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly empowers a State House of Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against a governor where allegations of gross misconduct arise. The Constitution defines gross misconduct as a grave violation or breach of its provisions, or any conduct which, in the opinion of the House, amounts to such misconduct. The approval or authorization of state expenditure without an Appropriation Law is a direct violation of the Constitution and squarely falls within the scope of gross misconduct envisaged by this provision.
Nigeria’s constitutional architecture establishes strict legislative control over public finance. Section 120(2) expressly provides that no money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a state except in the manner prescribed by the House of Assembly. Section 121 further mandates that all state expenditures for each financial year must be authorized by an Appropriation Law, while Section 122 allows only limited and temporary spending under narrowly defined circumstances. These provisions do not contemplate prolonged, discretionary, or routine expenditure without legislative approval. Any sustained deviation from this framework amounts to fiscal lawlessness and a breach of the supreme law of the land.
Judicial authorities have consistently affirmed these principles. In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423, the Supreme Court held that impeachment is a valid constitutional mechanism for addressing gross misconduct and that a House of Assembly is competent to determine whether alleged acts amount to gross misconduct, provided that the procedure laid down by the Constitution is strictly followed. The Court emphasized that executive office does not confer immunity from constitutional accountability.
Similarly, in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abia State (No. 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 764) 542, the Supreme Court underscored that public funds must be expended strictly in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions, holding that any expenditure undertaken without legislative authorization is illegal, unconstitutional, and void. These decisions leave no room for ambiguity as to the legal consequences of unauthorized public spending.
More recently, the Supreme Court judgment arising from the suit instituted by Martin Amaehule and 26 others against Governor Siminalayi Fubara, which emanated from the prolonged constitutional crisis in Rivers State, delivered a stern rebuke of executive actions that undermined legislative authority and constitutional order. In that judgment, the apex court condemned the disregard for constitutional processes and characterized such conduct as exhibiting despotic tendencies inconsistent with democratic governance and the rule of law. The Court reaffirmed that a governor must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries and that any attempt to sideline, emasculate, or render the House of Assembly irrelevant, particularly in matters of lawmaking and appropriation, is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
This pronouncement is particularly significant because it reinforces the principle that the House of Assembly is not subordinate to the executive arm of government but a co-equal institution vested with oversight, lawmaking, and appropriation powers. Executive high-handedness and constitutional violations are not mere political disagreements; they are justiciable breaches with grave constitutional consequences.
Against this backdrop, the Rivers State House of Assembly’s decision to activate the impeachment process is lawful, measured, and constitutionally grounded. Impeachment proceedings do not amount to a declaration of guilt. Rather, they trigger the investigative and adjudicatory process prescribed under Section 188 of the Constitution, including the constitution of an investigative panel and the guarantee of fair hearing to the governor.
What would amount to a dereliction of constitutional duty is for the legislature to ignore credible allegations of unconstitutional expenditure and executive lawlessness.
It is also instructive to situate the Rivers situation within Nigeria’s constitutional history. The impeachment attempt against the former Deputy Governor of Imo State, His Excellency Prince Eze Madumere, during the administration of Governor Rochas Okorocha, provides a relevant precedent. In that case, impeachment proceedings were initiated, but the process was eventually halted by the courts after the investigative panel constituted by the Chief Judge dismissed the allegations against the deputy governor. The courts subsequently struck out the impeachment proceedings. This precedent illustrates that impeachment is a process, not a predetermined outcome. Once the Chief Judge is invited to nominate members of an investigative panel, the process may well terminate at that stage if the panel finds no merit in the allegations. In Rivers State, it is widely believed that the Chief Judge, perceived as an ally of Governor Fubara, may constitute a panel sympathetic to the governor, which could dismiss the allegations, thereby bringing the process to an end. This possibility further underscores that impeachment proceedings, when properly initiated, are not instruments of persecution but constitutional safeguards subject to judicial oversight.
Beyond the legal arguments, public discourse has continued to raise troubling questions about the nature of governance in Rivers State. According to Hapijo, a New Media APC Media Officer, an alleged political “agreement” circulating within the state paints a disturbing picture of an elected governor whose powers are severely curtailed.
The claims suggest restrictions on the governor’s authority to appoint local government chairmen and commissioners, limitations on advisers, constraints on political association and travel, curbs on future political ambition, and even conditions relating to participation in governors’ forums and support for legislative tenures. If these claims are true, they raise the fundamental question of whether Rivers State is being governed by an elected executive or by unelected interests operating behind the scenes.
Concerned observers argue that any arrangement that reduces a sitting governor to a ceremonial figure while real power is exercised elsewhere is neither reconciliation nor power-sharing but an erosion of democratic mandate. Democracy is imperiled when the authority, voice, mobility, and political future of an elected leader are systematically stripped away through informal or extra-constitutional means.
Further allegations have also emerged from groups identifying themselves as Concern Rivers Interest, pointing to what they describe as unseen forces behind the revival of the National Democratic Party.
According to these claims, the party, previously deregistered, has advanced through INEC’s revalidation processes and is allegedly being positioned as a strategic political vehicle ahead of the 2027 elections. The allegations speak of intricate networks of proxies, funding mobilization, and long-term political calculations capable of reshaping governance and electoral competition. While these claims remain unproven and subject to independent verification, they have intensified public scrutiny of political maneuverings within and beyond Rivers State.
In a constitutional democracy anchored on the supremacy of the Constitution, accountability in the management of public funds and respect for institutional boundaries are non-negotiable. Viewed through this prism, the action of the Rivers State House of Assembly represents fidelity to constitutional governance, adherence to Supreme Court authority, and a commitment to safeguarding democratic institutions and public resources. Ultimately, it is the Constitution, not political sentiment, personal loyalty, or informal agreements, that must prevail. Truth, accountability, and constitutional order remain the enduring pillars upon which the stability and future of Rivers State must rest.
——–Emeka Amaefula —-+234(0)8111813069—–
