Jega Unmasks Rivers Impeachment Strategy

A profound constitutional standoff is currently gripping Rivers State as veteran political analyst Mahmud Jega sheds light on what he describes as a calculated attempt to dismantle the state’s judicial shield. Speaking during a recent appearance on Arise News, Jega claimed that the pro-Wike faction of the Rivers State House of Assembly previously attempted to orchestrate the removal of the Chief Judge, Justice Simeon Amadi. This move, Jega argues, was a preemptive strike designed to clear the path for the long-threatened impeachment of Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

According to Jega, the legislative offensive against the Chief Judge was born out of a realization that Justice Amadi would not be an easy collaborator. Under the Nigerian Constitution, the Chief Judge holds the “anchor point” of any impeachment process: the power to appoint the seven-member panel tasked with investigating allegations of gross misconduct. Jega noted that for an impeachment to succeed, history shows it often requires a level of partisanship from the state’s top jurist. In Rivers, however, the House appears to have hit a judicial brick wall.

The analyst pointed to earlier efforts by lawmakers to discredit the Chief Judge, including allegations of age falsification. Jega suggests these were not mere administrative queries but strategic attempts to install a more “amenable” figure who would appoint a panel guaranteed to return a guilty verdict. Without the Chief Judge’s cooperation, the lawmakers’ numerical majority in the Assembly remains a blunt instrument, unable to complete the constitutional requirements for removing the Governor or his Deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu.

The crisis reached a new peak this week when Justice Amadi officially declined the Assembly’s request to constitute an investigative panel. In a letter addressed to Speaker Martin Amaewhule, the Chief Judge cited subsisting interim injunctions issued by the High Court as the reason for his refusal. He maintained that as a custodian of the law, he is “legally fettered” and must respect the doctrine of lis pendens, especially since the Assembly has already filed an appeal against those very injunctions.

Jega’s analysis highlights a significant shift in Nigeria’s democratic experience. He recalled that during the Second Republic, courts often refused to interfere with impeachment proceedings, viewing them as purely legislative functions. However, the current situation in Rivers reveals a more interventionist judiciary. By securing injunctions that restrain the Chief Judge from even receiving impeachment documents, Governor Fubara has effectively utilized the courtroom as his strongest line of defense against political ouster.

The political analyst warned that even if the pro-Wike camp eventually wins their legal appeals, they will still face the same obstacle: Justice Amadi. As long as the Chief Judge remains in office and committed to judicial independence, the prospect of a “panel of integrity” returning a non-guilty verdict remains high. Under Section 188 of the Constitution, if an investigative panel clears the Governor, the impeachment process dies instantly, with no room for further legislative maneuvering.

This ongoing power struggle underscores the fragility of the peace in Rivers State and the central role of the judiciary in balancing political warfare. As the Assembly members remain tight-lipped following the Chief Judge’s refusal, the state remains in a period of intense legal and political suspense. For now, the “saving grace” for the Fubara administration appears to be the very judicial office that the opposition allegedly tried to compromise months ago.