An advocacy group has warned that any attempt by the Rivers State House of Assembly to continue the impeachment process against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his Deputy, Ngozi Odu, despite the interim injunctions and the subsequent appeal, would constitute a direct assault on judicial authority and could trigger a constitutional crisis.
The group noted that the Chief Judge of Rivers State, Simeon Amadi, acted lawfully by declining the request of the Assembly, noting that his decision was a necessary act of constitutional fidelity in the face of subsisting court orders.
In a statement issued on Friday, the Coalition for Democratic Accountability and Rule of Law, CDARL, noted that the political tension in Rivers State could only be de-escalated through strict compliance with judicial directives, stressing that the courts exist precisely to arbitrate disputes between arms of government when political processes break down.
It noted that the judiciary was not an obstacle to governance but the stabilising referee in moments of institutional conflict, stressing that the interim orders restraining the chief judge from receiving, considering or acting on any impeachment-related request left him with no lawful discretion under Section 188(5) of the Constitution.
The statement signed by Barr Ibrahim Abdulkareem, the group’s national president, said the doctrine of lis pendens, cited by the chief judge in his letter to the Rivers Assembly, is a settled principle of law designed to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings and prevent parallel actions that could prejudice the outcome of a pending appeal.
Abdulkareem noted that history has shown that constitutional breakdowns often begin with the casual disregard of interim court orders, warning that Rivers State must not repeat such mistakes.
“When a matter is before a higher court, all parties are required to maintain the status quo. The chief judge’s refusal to act while an appeal is pending is not obstruction; it is constitutional discipline,” Abdulkareem said.
“Lawmakers weaken democracy when they treat court orders as inconveniences to be bypassed. The judiciary is not an obstacle to governance; it is the stabilising referee in moments of institutional conflict.”
“When elected officials begin to pick and choose which court orders to obey, the rule of law collapses. What follows is institutional paralysis, loss of public confidence and prolonged instability,” the group noted.
“The true test of democracy is obedience to the law when it is inconvenient. Rivers State must choose legality over expediency.
“The legislature cannot credibly claim to defend constitutional order while acting in open disregard of judicial restraint. That contradiction is dangerous and unsustainable,” the statement read.
Fubara impeachment: Ignoring court orders threatens rule of law — Advocacy group
