Rivers State and the Constitutional Burden of Legislative Power – Abdul Mahmud

By Abdul Mahmud

The Rivers State House of Assembly last week served impeachment notices on Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Deputy Governor Ngozi Odu respectively. The notices and the proceedings that will ultimately ensue draw their forces from the Constitution.

Although the impeachment notices emerged from a political environment marked by prolonged institutional conflict and conduct the legislature considers inconsistent with constitutional duty, their issuance squarely falls within the lawful powers of the House of Assembly. The Constitution does not condition legislative authority on political harmony or executive approval. On the contrary, it anticipates conflict and equips the legislature with instruments to manage it within legal bounds. Impeachment serves as one such instrument, designed to restrain executive power where dialogue has failed and constitutional norms appear threatened. The presence of political tension does not taint the process. It underscores its necessity. When institutional disagreements harden into sustained obstruction or disregard for constitutional obligations, the legislature bears a duty to act.

In exercising that duty through impeachment proceedings, the House affirms its role as the guardian of constitutional order, ensuring that political disputes remain subject to law rather than resolved through force, fiat, or governance paralysis.
In a constitutional democracy, impeachment stands as a grave instrument. Its gravity does not diminish its legitimacy. The power belongs to the legislature, and its exercise calls for sober analysis rather than alarm. Rivers State has endured months of political turbulence marked by a breakdown of trust between the executive and the legislature. That breakdown did not occur in a vacuum. It followed disputes over the control of legislative business, the status of members, access to public funds, and compliance with judicial pronouncements.

The Assembly insists that the executive has acted in ways that weaken legislative authority and frustrate constitutional governance. In that charged environment, the impeachment notice signals an attempt by the legislature to reassert its constitutional place.
The 1999 Nigerian Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers anchored on mutual restraints. The legislature occupies a central position within that design. At the state level, the House of Assembly wields the authority to make laws, approve budgets, oversee public expenditure, and hold the executive to account. These powers do not depend on executive goodwill or fiat. They derive directly from the Constitution. Where the Assembly believes that the Governor or Deputy Governor has committed gross misconduct, the Constitution confers on the Assembly the power to commence impeachment proceedings. Impeachment, properly understood, functions as a constitutional safeguard. It protects the polity from executive excess and preserves the supremacy of the Constitution.

The threshold for impeachment remains high, and the process carries procedural safeguards. Notice must be served. Allegations must be stated. Investigations must follow. A panel of inquiry must be constituted. The Assembly must reach the constitutionally required majority. Each stage underscores legislative primacy in enforcing constitutional discipline within the executive arm.

The political context in Rivers State has sharpened the stakes. The House of Assembly claims that the executive has sought to govern without legislative cooperation. Allegations include attempts to bypass the Assembly in budgetary matters and to impede legislative sittings. The Constitution vests the power of appropriation in the legislature. No public funds may be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a state without legislative authorisation. Where a Governor presents a budget to a faction or declines to present one to a duly constituted Assembly, the allegation points to a serious breach of constitutional process. Another area of concern centers on compliance with court orders.

The rule of law binds all authorities and persons. The Assembly alleges that the executive has disregarded judicial decisions relating to the functioning of the legislature and the recognition of its leadership. Disobedience to court orders strikes at the heart of constitutional governance. The Constitution envisions courts as arbiters of constitutional disputes. Executive defiance undermines legal certainty and weakens democratic institutions.

The Assembly also raises issues of obstruction and intimidation. Legislatures must operate freely to discharge oversight functions. Where the House is prevented from sitting or where it faces interference traceable to executive influence, the allegation amounts to an assault on legislative independence. The Constitution protects the Assembly from such encroachment. Legislative autonomy forms a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Beyond the Governor, the impeachment notice extends to the Deputy Governor.

The Constitution holds the Deputy Governor to the same standard of conduct. Allegations against the Deputy Governor include public actions and statements that the Assembly considers inimical to constitutional order. Where a Deputy Governor aligns with conduct that undermines legislative authority or encourages disobedience to lawful institutions, the Assembly may regard such behavior as gross misconduct. The office demands restraint, loyalty to constitutional processes, and respect for institutional boundaries. Gross misconduct, as contemplated by the Constitution, covers grave violations of the Constitution or misconduct of such nature that amounts to a breach of the oath of office.

The Assembly alleges that the Governor and Deputy Governor have breached their oaths by failing to uphold the Constitution and by acting in ways that erode legislative authority. These allegations remain subject to proof within the impeachment process. The constitutional framework provides the forum for that determination.

Critics often portray impeachment as a political vendetta. That portrayal oversimplifies a complex constitutional mechanism. Politics provides the setting, but the Constitution supplies the rules. Legislatures act through political judgment, yet their actions carry legal consequences. The Assembly must ground its case in specific constitutional breaches and must follow due process. Where those conditions obtain, impeachment stands as a lawful exercise of power. The Rivers State episode also raises broader questions about federalism and state autonomy. States’ Houses of Assembly occupy a pivotal role within Nigeria’s federal structure.

They serve as the closest representatives of the people at the subnational level. Their authority to discipline the executive affirms the vitality of democracy at the subnational level. Weak legislatures invite executive dominance. Strong legislatures sustain constitutional balance.

Public discourse benefits from clarity on the nature of impeachment. The notice does not remove the Governor. Removal occurs only after the completion of a rigorous process. The notice initiates inquiry. That inquiry allows the Governor and the Deputy Governor the opportunity to respond. The right to fair hearing remains guaranteed. The State House of Assembly must proceed with transparency and restraint. The legitimacy of the outcome depends on fidelity to constitutional procedure.
The political environment in Rivers State calls for institutional sobriety. Passion runs high, but the Constitution demands calm adherence to process. The House has chosen a constitutional path to address its grievances. That choice deserves recognition as an assertion of lawful authority rather than a descent into disorder. The alternative to constitutional action would invite extra-legal confrontation, a path fraught with danger.

For the executive, the impeachment notice presents a moment for reflection. Executive power thrives within constitutional limits. Engagement with the legislature, respect for court orders, and adherence to budgetary procedures strengthen governance. Resistance to legislative oversight weakens public trust and fuels institutional conflict. The unfolding process underscores the importance of constitutional literacy. So, the personages of power and institutions connected to the impeachment saga must understand the constitutional limits of their powers. When those personages of power and institutions clash, the Constitution itself supplies the language for resolution. Impeachment forms part of that language. Its use signals stress within the governance order, but also demonstrates the availability of lawful remedies.

The Rivers State House of Assembly has acted within its constitutional competence by serving the impeachment notice. The coming weeks will test the integrity of the process and the commitment of all actors to constitutional order. Legislative authority, once asserted through lawful means, reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution. That supremacy remains the surest anchor for political stability and democratic governance in Rivers State and beyond.