The escalating political crisis in Rivers State took a decisive legal turn on Thursday as the Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Simeon C. Amadi, formally declined a request by the Rivers State House of Assembly to constitute a seven-man investigative panel to probe allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Nma Odu.
Justice Amadi based his decision on subsisting interim court injunctions and pending appeals, a development that has effectively stalled the Assembly’s impeachment process, at least for now.
In a letter dated January 20, 2026, and addressed to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. ————, the Chief Judge acknowledged receipt of two separate letters from the Assembly, both dated January 16, 2026, requesting the constitution of an investigative panel pursuant to Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
However, Justice Amadi explained that his hands were tied by ongoing judicial proceedings directly connected to the impeachment process. He disclosed that his office had been served with interim injunctions issued on January 16, 2026, arising from two separate suits challenging the actions of the House of Assembly.
The suits include Suit No. OYHC/6/CS/2026, filed by the Deputy Governor, Prof. (Ms.) Ngozi Nma Odu, DSSRS, against the Speaker and 32 others, and Suit No. OYHC/7/CS/2026, instituted by Governor Siminalayi Fubara, GSSRS, against the Speaker and 32 others.
According to the Chief Judge, the interim injunctions expressly restrain him from “receiving, forwarding, considering and or howsoever acting on any request, resolution, articles of impeachment or other documents or communication from the 1st – 27th and 31st Defendants for the purpose of constituting a panel to investigate the purported allegations of misconduct against the Claimant/Applicant for seven days.”
Justice Amadi stressed that obedience to court orders is non-negotiable in a constitutional democracy, regardless of personal opinions about such orders.
“Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law are the bedrock of democracy and all persons and authorities are expected to obey subsisting orders of court of competent jurisdiction, irrespective of perception of its regularity or otherwise,” he stated.
To further underscore his position, the Chief Judge cited judicial precedent, referring to the case of Hon. Dele Abiodun v. The Hon. Chief Judge of Kwara State & 3 Ors. (2007), in which the Chief Judge of Kwara State was faulted for proceeding to constitute a panel despite a subsisting court order restraining such action.
Quoting directly from the judgment, Justice Amadi recalled:
“I liken the scenario created by the Chief Judge to the position of a chief priest and custodian of an oracle turning round to desecrate the oracle,” a passage he said highlights the sacred duty of judicial officers to uphold the law.
He added that the judiciary, as “the custodian and head of the judicial arm of the State, ought to abide by the laws of the State, nay the land…”
Justice Amadi also noted that the Rivers State House of Assembly has already filed appeals against the interim injunctions at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, with notices of appeal served on January 19 and 20, 2026.
“In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered, as there are subsisting interim orders of injunction and appeal against the said orders,” the Chief Judge declared. “I am therefore legally disabled at this point, from exercising my duties under Section 188(5) of the Constitution in the instant.”
He concluded by expressing hope that “the Rt. Hon. Speaker and the Honourable Members of the Rivers State House of Assembly will be magnanimous enough to appreciate the legal position of the matter.”
The decision marks a pivotal moment in Rivers State’s deepening political standoff, placing a temporary brake on the impeachment process while reinforcing the judiciary’s central role in safeguarding constitutional order and due process.
