posted 18th March 2025
Rivers State House of Assembly Launches Impeachment Proceedings Against Governor Siminalayi Fubara Amid Political Crisis
Port Harcourt, 18 March 2025 – The Rivers State House of Assembly, led by Speaker Martin Amaewhule and dominated by 27 lawmakers loyal to former Governor Nyesom Wike, has formally initiated impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu. This development, announced on Monday, 17 March, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing political turmoil in Rivers State, pitting Fubara against his predecessor and political mentor, Wike, now the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The move has sparked questions about the conditions for impeaching a governor in Nigeria, the motivations behind the lawmakers’ allegiance to Wike, and the wider implications for governance and judicial integrity across the nation.
During a plenary session on 17 March, 26 of the 27 pro-Wike lawmakers signed two letters accusing Fubara and Odu of “gross misconduct” in their duties. The notice, presented under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), requires the Speaker to serve the accused officials within seven days and calls for a resolution within 14 days to decide whether the allegations merit investigation. Though specifics of the alleged misconduct remain unclear, the action follows months of friction, including Fubara’s alleged refusal to re-present the 2025 budget to the Amaewhule-led Assembly, as mandated by a Supreme Court ruling on 28 February 2025.
Under Section 188 of the Nigerian Constitution, impeaching a state governor is a stringent process aimed at ensuring accountability while guarding against arbitrary actions. It begins with at least one-third of the State House of Assembly members (11 out of 32 in Rivers State) signing a notice of allegation, typically citing “gross misconduct”—a term broadly interpreted as a serious breach of the constitution or public trust. Within 14 days, the Assembly must pass a motion by a two-thirds majority (22 members in Rivers State) to investigate. If approved, the Speaker requests the State Chief Judge to appoint a seven-member panel of impartial persons to probe the claims. The panel must report within three months, and if it upholds the misconduct, the Assembly can vote by a two-thirds majority to remove the governor.
In Rivers State, with 27 loyal lawmakers, the pro-Wike faction easily surpasses the one-third threshold to start the process and the two-thirds majority (22 votes) to advance it, assuming they remain united. However, success depends on the investigation panel’s findings and the Chief Judge’s cooperation.
The loyalty of the 27 lawmakers to Wike, who governed Rivers State from 2015 to 2023, is rooted in political allegiance and patronage. Wike, a dominant figure in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) before his rift with Fubara, handpicked Fubara as his successor, securing his win in the 2023 election. The lawmakers, many of whom owe their seats to Wike’s influence, defected from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in December 2023, aligning with Wike after he joined President Bola Tinubu’s administration as FCT Minister. This shift was likely a bid to retain their political clout and Wike’s support, given his grip on the state’s political “structure” and his sway within the APC.
President Tinubu’s apparent backing of Wike reflects political pragmatism. Wike’s move to the APC bolstered Tinubu’s foothold in the oil-rich South-South region, vital to Nigeria’s economy. Tinubu has publicly mediated the Rivers crisis, brokering a peace deal in late 2023 that later collapsed. Critics suggest Tinubu supports Wike to neutralise opposition forces, notably the PDP, and to secure Rivers State’s resources and votes ahead of the 2027 elections. This backing has emboldened the 27 lawmakers, giving them federal leverage against Fubara.
The impeachment’s success is feasible but not certain. The pro-Wike faction’s numerical advantage provides a procedural edge, and the Supreme Court’s recognition of Amaewhule’s leadership bolsters their legitimacy. Fubara’s initial refusal to present the 2025 budget—despite his recent pledge to comply following the Supreme Court ruling—could be framed as “gross misconduct,” particularly given the court’s order to halt state funding until compliance. Wike has argued that spending without legislative approval breaches the constitution, a claim that could resonate with the Assembly and the investigation panel.
Yet, Fubara enjoys considerable public backing, as seen in youth protests in 2023 against earlier impeachment bids. Legal challenges, such as disputes over the lawmakers’ defection and their legitimacy, could also derail the process. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has not declared their seats vacant or issued forms for by-elections, despite Fubara’s claim that their defection voids their positions under Section 109 of the Constitution—a matter still unresolved.
Fubara and his Commissioner for Information, Joseph Johnson, have indicated readiness to present the 2025 budget to the Amaewhule-led Assembly, yielding to the Supreme Court’s directive. This shift, announced after a failed attempt on 12 March when security barred him from the Assembly quarters, aims to remove one impeachment pretext. However, Fubara’s camp continues to challenge the 27 lawmakers’ status, arguing INEC should have acted on their defection. The absence of INEC forms (election documents) to replace them highlights institutional delays or bias, complicating Fubara’s defence.
This saga lays bare deep flaws in Nigeria’s governance. The judiciary’s conflicting rulings—such as the Supreme Court’s endorsement of Amaewhule versus earlier state court orders barring him—reveal inconsistency and potential political sway. The executive, under Fubara, has faced accusations of undermining the legislature by withholding funds and demolishing the Assembly complex, while the legislature’s defection and impeachment push suggest partisan overreach. Tinubu’s support for Wike raises concerns about federal meddling, and INEC’s inaction fuels perceptions of selective enforcement. Together, these dynamics reflect a system where personal loyalty and power overshadow institutional integrity.
The Constitution requires the State Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Chibuzor Amadi, to appoint the investigation panel if the Assembly’s motion passes. The Chief Judge’s role is crucial but not discretionary—he must act if procedural steps are met. However, Amadi’s impartiality is under scrutiny. Wike’s camp has accused him of siding with Fubara, citing his alleged reluctance to aid past impeachment efforts, while Fubara’s allies question Amadi’s appointment under Wike, hinting at bias. Without clear evidence of corruption, Amadi is likely to fulfil his constitutional duty, though political pressure could shape the panel’s makeup.
Without Tinubu’s support, the 27 lawmakers might lack the federal influence to counter Fubara’s local strength and legal challenges, potentially weakening their resolve or legitimacy. Still, their numbers and Wike’s resources could sustain the effort. The Chief Judge’s refusal to appoint a panel would stop the process, but such resistance seems unlikely given constitutional obligations and the Supreme Court’s backing of Amaewhule. Thus, while Tinubu and Amadi boost the odds, the 27 could theoretically proceed without them if cohesive and legally unchallenged.
The impeachment bid against Fubara highlights Nigeria’s volatile political terrain, where personal rivalries and institutional frailties collide. Success depends on the pro-Wike faction’s unity, judicial decisions, and public reaction. While conditions favour the 27, Fubara’s resilience and potential legal counters could prolong the struggle, leaving Rivers State—and Nigeria’s democratic credibility—in a state of uncertainty.
