The Supreme Court of Nigeria has accused Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara of deliberately dismantling the state House of Assembly to obstruct impeachment proceedings against him. The court further outlined several constitutional violations allegedly committed by the governor, describing his actions as a direct assault on democratic governance. This development marks a significant escalation in the ongoing political crisis in Rivers State, where tensions between Fubara and the legislature—particularly lawmakers loyal to his predecessor, Nyesom Wike—have deepened in recent months.
One of the most damning allegations against Governor Fubara is the deliberate demolition of the Rivers State House of Assembly Complex. The Supreme Court ruled that this act was a calculated move to render the legislature inoperative, thereby preventing it from carrying out its constitutional functions, including the impeachment process. While the governor cited structural damage and fire incidents as the reason for the demolition, the court dismissed these justifications as an excuse to subvert legislative authority. The ruling emphasized that no governor has the legal right to dismantle a co-equal arm of government, calling the action an unprecedented attack on the democratic process.
Beyond the physical destruction of the Assembly complex, the court highlighted administrative and financial tactics allegedly employed by the governor to weaken the legislature. These included withholding funds meant for the House of Assembly, removing key legislative staff without due process, and restricting lawmakers’ access to legislative chambers. Such actions, the court noted, amounted to a deliberate effort to obstruct governance and undermine the separation of powers enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
The Supreme Court also faulted Governor Fubara for appointing several commissioners without seeking the approval of the House of Assembly, as required by law. This unilateral decision, according to the ruling, not only violated constitutional provisions but also set a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. Additionally, the governor was accused of interfering in local government administration, particularly through the removal of 23 local government chairmen, an act the court described as unconstitutional and disruptive to grassroots governance.
As part of its judgment, the Supreme Court reinstated the 27 lawmakers loyal to Wike who had been previously declared defectors. This decision effectively shifts the power dynamics in the Rivers State House of Assembly and could lead to renewed impeachment efforts against Fubara. The court also nullified the removal of local government chairmen and imposed financial restrictions on the state government, preventing the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation from releasing statutory allocations to the state until constitutional order is restored.
The implications of this ruling are far-reaching. Politically, it strengthens the position of lawmakers seeking to hold Fubara accountable and increases the likelihood of an impeachment attempt. The ruling also raises the possibility of federal intervention if the crisis continues to escalate. More broadly, the judgment reinforces the principle of institutional checks and balances, sending a strong message that governors cannot undermine the legislature without consequences.
For Governor Fubara, this legal setback presents a significant challenge to his administration. His ability to navigate this crisis will depend on whether he can negotiate a political settlement with lawmakers or secure intervention from the national leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party. If he fails to do so, his tenure could be threatened either by impeachment or political isolation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s crucial role in upholding democratic principles and holding public officials accountable. The accusations against Fubara—ranging from legislative sabotage to unconstitutional governance—underscore the dangers of executive overreach. As Rivers State grapples with the fallout of this judgment, the outcome of this political battle will have lasting implications for democratic governance in Nigeria.
