By David Iyowuna Eresia-eke Ibe

The impeachment notice served on Governor Siminalayi Fubara by the Martins Amaehule-led Assembly is a political script with no legal foundation. It is filled with vague accusations, legal misinterpretations, and an outright disregard for constitutional principles.

Baseless Allegations Without Substance

The lawmakers claim the governor engaged in “reckless and unconstitutional expenditure of public funds,” citing Sections 120, 121, and 122 of the Constitution. But they fail to specify:

Which public funds were spent illegally?

Which specific transactions violated the law?

Was this spending during his time as Governor or as Accountant General?

A credible legislative indictment must be backed by facts, not sweeping generalizations. The failure to provide concrete details exposes this as a politically motivated attack, not a legitimate constitutional process.

The Governor Acted Under Court Orders (Section 287 of the Constitution)

If the allegation is that the Governor spent money without the Assembly’s approval, they must remember that all spending was done under valid court orders. The doctrine of judicial protection ensures that any action taken under a court order is legally binding until set aside by a higher court. Oko Jumbo’s role as Speaker was also recognized under such a ruling, just as the budget presentation was guided by judicial authority.

Section 287 of the Constitution mandates that all persons and authorities must obey court orders. The Assembly cannot impeach a governor for following a legal directive…that would itself be unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Recognition Does Not Retroactively Invalidate Past Actions (Section 6 of the Constitution)

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Martins Amaehule-led Assembly is the authentic body does not nullify previous actions carried out under court orders.

The judicial arm holds the power to interpret laws, and once a ruling is given, it remains binding until a competent court overturns it. This is a well-established legal principle: Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621. The Supreme Court ruled that no authority including a legislature … has the power to undermine a valid court decision.

Impeachment for Past Spending Is Legally Meaningless (Sections 120-122 of the Constitution)

The 2024 financial year has ended. Even if the lawmakers claim they did not approve spending, there is no practical way to reverse it. Section 120 states that public funds must be withdrawn in the manner prescribed by the Assembly, but if a court ruling provided an alternative route, the law protects such actions.

Section 121 requires the governor to present the budget, which he did – under a court order. Section 122 prohibits unauthorized withdrawals, but if a court granted him authority, the spending remains valid. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that where a governor is acting under a lawful directive, his financial decisions remain constitutional until set aside: A.G. Bendel State v. A.G. Federation (1981) 10 SC 1. Spending must follow due process, but if a court ruling authorized it, the governor cannot be penalized retroactively.

Political Vendetta Disguised as Impeachment (Section 188(10) of the Constitution)

Impeachment is a constitutional tool, not a political weapon. Section 188(10) of the Constitution makes it clear that while courts cannot interfere in impeachment processes, they can step in when due process is abused — which is exactly what is happening here.

This impeachment notice is not about governance, it is about control. The same Assembly that failed to challenge the spending at the time now wants to use it as an excuse to remove the governor. The people of Rivers State can see through this charade.

This Impeachment Attempt Holds No Water

1. No Specific Infractions: A credible allegation should contain verifiable details, not vague claims.

2. Court Orders Shield the Governor (Section 287): His actions were lawful at the time and remain so until a court overturns them.

3. The Supreme Court’s Ruling Does Not Invalidate Past Spending (Section 6): Retroactive impeachment based on past legal actions is unconstitutional.

4. The 2024 Financial Year Has Ended (Sections 120-122): The alleged spending is irreversible, making impeachment meaningless.

5. This is a Political Ambush, Not a Constitutional Process (Section 188(10)): Courts will intervene where due process is being manipulated.

The Rivers State Assembly’s move is a textbook case of political desperation, not a serious constitutional process. The law is clear, and this impeachment attempt is both legally unsound and politically reckless.

• David Iyowuna Eresia-eke Ibe writes from Port Harcourt