Why Rivers State Chief Judge Refused to Constitute a Panel to Probe Governor Fubara — A Clear-Eyed Breakdowns

In a moment that underscores the tension between law and politics, Rivers State’s Chief Judge, Justice Simeon C. Amadi, issued a decisive verdict not in a courtroom but in a letter to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly — Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule. On January 20, 2026, he explained why he would not, could not, and legally should not constitute a seven-member investigative panel to probe Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu — even as impeachment proceedings loom large. 

At its core, this isn’t a political dodge. It’s a judicious stand rooted in constitutional discipline — a reminder that even in political storms, the rule of law must be the keel that keeps the ship upright. 

Justice Amadi’s response came in context: on January 16, the Rivers Assembly passed a resolution invoking Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution to investigate alleged gross misconduct by the governor and his deputy. Shortly thereafter, both Fubara and Odu went to the High Court in Port Harcourt, obtaining interim injunctions that restrained the Chief Judge from acting on any impeachment-related requests, documents, or resolutions. Those injunctions were served on his office and remain now in effect. 

Yet the story doesn’t end with an injunction. On top of the restraining orders, the Assembly itself has filed appeals against those orders at the Court of Appeal. This puts the matter under the legal doctrine of lis pendens — a Latin term that means a matter is pending and thus all parties must maintain the status quo until a higher court speaks. That principle, Justice Amadi noted, ties his hands. 

Justice Amadi articulated that his role is not to dodge accountability, but to uphold the Constitution and the judiciary’s duty to obey lawful court orders, whether popular or not. He even pointed to legal precedent — a case from 2007 in Kwara State where a chief judge was condemned by the Court of Appeal for ignoring a restraining order when setting up an investigative panel, a misstep that was later voided. 

So what does this mean for Rivers State politics?

First, the impeachment process is legally stalled. Without a panel constituted under Section 188, the Assembly cannot proceed to investigate. The judicial arena now becomes the center of gravity for this dispute, as the outcome of appeals will heavily determine whether impeachment can proceed. 

Second, Justice Amadi’s stand reinforces a broader constitutional truth: political will does not automatically translate to constitutional authority. In polarized environments — especially where governance and political rivalry intersect — the judiciary often becomes the final referee. Acting contrary to court orders, even amidst political pressure, risks contempt and constitutional crisis. 

Finally, this episode highlights a critical tension in democratic governance: how the separation of powers operates when each arm (executive, legislative, judiciary) insists on its own mandates. Justice Amadi’s decision, uncomfortable as it may be for some actors, is anchored in legal doctrine — showing that, even in heated contexts, constitutional processes can serve as both shield and compass. 

In essence, the Chief Judge didn’t decline because he lacked interest or backbone. He stood at the intersection of law and politics and chose the path of legal fidelity — a choice that, in its quiet precision, speaks louder than partisan rhetoric. 

If you want a deeper trajectory of where this legal tussle might lead — from the Court of Appeal to possibly the Supreme Court — I can sketch out the scenarios next.