On the 8th of January, 2025, the Rivers State Assembly initiated impeachment proceedings against His Excellency, Sim Fubara, the Executive Governor of Rivers State.
While this has heightened tension in Rivers State, this write-up seeks to X-ray the process of impeachment in our jurisprudence.
The process for impeaching a Governor in Nigeria is provided by Section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
This section governs the removal of a Governor or Deputy Governor on grounds of “gross misconduct” committed in the performance of the functions of their office.
Gross misconduct, as defined in the Constitution, is a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the Constitution, or a misconduct of such nature as amounts, in the opinion of the State House of Assembly, to gross misconduct.
The impeachment process under Section 188 is one that must be strictly complied with, failure of which renders the impeachment unconstitutional. Below are the procedures as outlined by the constitution in Section 188;
1. Notice of Allegation: The process is initiated by a notice signed by at least one-third of the members of the State House of Assembly, alleging that the Governor is guilty of gross misconduct. This notice is presented to the Speaker of the House.
2. Service of the Notice: The said notice must, within seven days, be served on the Governor. The Governor has the choice to reply, and such response must be circulated to all members of the State House of Assembly.
3. Decision to Investigate through a House Motion: Within 14 days of the Speaker receiving the notice, the House must vote, without debate, on a motion to investigate. The motion must attract at least a two-thirds majority of all members.
4. Appointment of Investigative Panel: Where the motion succeeds, the Chief Judge of the State, at the request of the Speaker, appoints a seven-member panel to investigate the allegation. It should be noted that members of the panel cannot be public servants, legislators, or active political party members.
5. Investigation and Report: The panel has three months to investigate the Governor. The Governor has a right to appear alone or be represented by counsel.
6. Panel Findings: If the allegations are unproven, the impeachment process ends. However, where they are proven, the panel reports to the House, and the House must consider the findings within 14 days.
7. Adoption of Report: When sent back to the House, the House must adopt the panel’s report with a two-thirds majority of all members. Upon adoption, the Governor is immediately removed from office.
It must be noted that where the Governor is removed, the Deputy Governor is immediately sworn in as Governor.
Where both the Governor and the Deputy Governor are impeached, the Speaker of the House becomes Acting Governor until fresh elections are conducted.
In summary, impeachment is not final until the process strictly complies with each step of Section 188(1)–(9). The final decision is the two-thirds majority adoption of the panel’s report by the State House of Assembly.
The Constitution contains an ouster clause in Section 188(10) that appears to bar judicial interference in impeachment proceedings.
However, this clause only applies after strict compliance with Section 188(1)–(9). Courts will intervene where there are procedural breaches.
In INAKOJU & ORS v. ADELEKE & ORS (2007), the Supreme Court held that unless the process under Sections 188(1)–(9) was strictly followed, the ouster clause could not apply, and courts retain jurisdiction to hear challenges.
Although Section 188(10) attempts to prevent courts from reviewing impeachment proceedings, Nigerian courts have held that they can review the process only to determine whether the constitutional procedure was followed.
A successful appeal can result in the impeachment being nullified and voided, and the Governor reinstated, or other appropriate orders made.
Numerous Governors have faced impeachment under Section 188, with mixed outcomes:
a. Diepreye Alamieyeseigha (Bayelsa, 2005) was impeached on corruption allegations. His removal stood; no successful appeal overturned it.
b. Rashidi Ladoja (Oyo, 2006) was impeached in January 2006. The Court of Appeal declared the impeachment illegal, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision, reinstating him.
c. Peter Obi (Anambra, 2006) was impeached amidst political turmoil. He successfully challenged the impeachment in court and was reinstated.
d. Joshua Dariye (Plateau, 2006) was impeached in 2006. The Court of Appeal ordered his reinstatement, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
e. Murtala Nyako (Adamawa, 2014) was impeached in 2014. The Court of Appeal declared the impeachment illegal, and the Supreme Court upheld this, though he was not reinstated due to the expiration of his tenure.
In Nigeria, impeachment of a Governor is a rigorous constitutional process guided by Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution.
It involves notice of allegations, House decisions, panel investigations, and super-majority votes.
Its finality depends on strict procedural compliance, and appeals lie to higher courts where breaches are alleged.
Cases such as Ladoja, Obi, and Dariye demonstrate the judiciary’s role in validating or invalidating impeachment actions.
About the Writer, Henry Barnabas Ehi, MICA ( Notary), Is a partner at Maxon & Prime Legal and the Assistant General Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association
Related:
Court Orders Arrest of Ondo Women Affairs Commissioner Over Alleged Assault on Magistrate
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Supreme Court judgments:
Read: constitutional analyses and judicial commentaries on Nigerian governance and the rule of law.
