Designed as a constitutional safeguard – a last-resort mechanism to hold the executive accountable for gross misconduct or abuse of office, JOSEPH ONYEKWERE of Guardian Newspaper reports that the ongoing impeachment plot in Rivers State and similar episodes countrywide showcase how lawmakers have transformed it into a weapon of political combat. If left unchecked, it can corrode democratic stability and constitutional governance in the country.
The ongoing plot to impeach Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, by the Rivers State House of Assembly amid deep political disagreements reflects a broader pattern in the Nigerian political landscape, where legislative impeachment threats surface not primarily due to constitutional breaches, but during moments of elite power struggle.
Hence, rather than strengthening democratic oversight, such actions risk undermining the very institutions that they are meant to protect.
In theory, the separation of powers encourages constructive tension between the legislature and the executive.
In practice, however, this tension often degenerates into outright hostility when political alignments fracture.
Once lawmakers and the executive fall out – often due to disputes over party control, succession politics or access to state resources, impeachment proceedings quickly emerge as a strategic option.
Leveraging on the provisions of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which empowered it to remove the head of the executive, the Rivers State House of Assembly accused the governor and his deputy of gross misconduct.
The misconduct, they said, included the demolition of the Assembly Complex without legislative approval, extra-budgetary spending, withholding statutory funds, failure to present the 2026 Appropriation Bill for House consideration and approval, among other sundry allegations.
The RSHA position notwithstanding, many claim the impeachment moves appear less driven by these allegations/constitutional violations, and more by the breakdown of political consensus. The Rivers State sage mirrors previous cases in Plateau, Oyo, Ekiti, and Bayelsa states, as well as others, where impeachment processes were initiated or concluded under intense political pressure, frequently prompting judicial intervention.
The credibility of an impeachment exercise depends heavily on strict adherence to constitutional procedure, transparency and fairness. When speed replaces scrutiny and numerical strength substitutes for evidence, an impeachment loses its moral and legal authority.
Over the years, the frequent sidelining of due process, including inadequate notice, denial of fair hearing and hurried sittings, has repeatedly drawn condemnation from the courts. Yet the recurrence of these practices suggests that impeachment has become normalised as a bargaining chip rather than a solemn constitutional duty.
For example, in January 2006, the then Governor Rashidi Ladoja was impeached by the Oyo State House of Assembly amid intense intra-party and executive-legislative conflict. The process was later overturned by the courts because of procedural irregularities and lack of requisite legislative support, highlighting the political nature of the move.
The same year, Mr Peter Obi was impeached by the Anambra State legislature after only six months in office as governor. The impeachment was widely criticised as politically motivated, with observers noting that it came amid disputes over budgetary issues and legislative control. It was also overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Similarly, Governor Joshua Dariye of Plateau State was impeached by a small number of lawmakers. This action was later struck down by the Supreme Court because it failed to meet constitutional requirements. The circumstances suggested political manoeuvring rather than a genuine constitutional impeachment process.
Another governor who suffered the same fate was Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State. Fayose was impeached by the state assembly over alleged mismanagement of funds. Though presented as misconduct, the impeachment was overturned by the Supreme Court due to procedural flaws, and the eventual crisis even led to the suspension of the state assembly under federal emergency powers.
In 2014, the impeachment of Governor Murtala Nyako was initiated amid friction between the executive and the state legislature. It was later declared illegal by the Court of Appeal due to procedural lapses. This is a pattern often seen where impeachment is driven by political disagreement.
Sadly, the recent crisis in Rivers State is taking a similar pattern and may also not withstand judicial scrutiny, if indeed it is carried out and challenged in court, given the fact that the exercise is triggered by a deep political conflict between the governor and his estranged godfather, who is allegedly instigating a majority of lawmakers in the assembly.
Unfortunately, this political standoff had earlier escalated into a state of emergency, leading to the suspension of the governor and the state assembly, underscoring how impeachment threats can become part of broader political battles.
Indeed, the weaponisation of impeachment carries significant consequences. Among other things, it deepens political instability, distracts governments from policy delivery, and weakens public trust in democratic institutions. Also, citizens begin to see legislatures not as representatives of popular will, but as extensions of factional interests.
More dangerously, it sends a signal that electoral mandates can be subverted through parliamentary arithmetic, encouraging a cycle of retaliation whenever political power shifts. This erodes democratic norms and creates a climate of perpetual governance uncertainty.
Reacting to this development, public interest advocate, Kunle Edun (SAN) explained that the essence of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which provides for the impeachment of a state governor is to act as a check against governors who decide to commit unconstitutional acts or other serious misconducts, which to a reasonable person makes the governor no longer a fit and proper person to continue to remain in the office, which he holds as a trustee for the electorate.
“Sadly, what has now become the norm is that the political tool of impeachment has been weaponised by various Houses of Assembly such that they are now thorns in the flesh of state governors.
“For fear of impeachment, many State governors would be willing to grant all the demands of the Houses of Assembly. These demands, in most cases, have nothing to do with the security and welfare of the people, which is the primary reason for electing them in the first place, but it is more about their personal and selfish needs.
I can bet that with the way things are now, a criminally-minded governor may easily find accomplices in states’ Houses of Assembly, to loot the state treasury while the people suffer,” he submitted.
Edun argued that in many states where there seems to be peace, it may not necessarily be because both arms of government are working for the good of the people. According to him, the more likely reason could be that both the executive and the legislature have conspired to get what they want, more like willing accomplices.
He recalled that the history of impeachment in Nigeria began with the late Alhaji Balarabe Musa, the then-governor of Kaduna State. He stated that the recent case involving Governor Fubara has always been about what political godfathers want, not about the people.
His words: “If you hand over the treasury and control of the state to political godfathers, the state governor will have peace. So, if a governor does otherwise, they will give him Fubara’s treatment.
“A governor of a state in the South-South once boasted that he bought the nomination forms of all the members of the state House of Assembly and footed the bill for their campaigns. This is nothing new. It is just one of the political errors we are living with in Nigeria.
“Such legislators shamelessly move like zombies and do whatever the political godfathers ask them to do. These are the true enemies of democracy.”
For political commentator/policy analyst, Dr Monday Ubani (SAN), weaponising impeachment is a dangerous threat to Nigeria’s democracy.
The recent developments in Rivers, he said, once again raised a fundamental constitutional concern, which is the increasing weaponisation of the impeachment process by legislatures whenever political disagreements arise between the executive and parliament.
“Impeachment is not a political tool; it is a constitutional safeguard designed strictly for situations of proven gross misconduct. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of governance, uphold accountability, and preserve public trust. When impeachment is converted into a weapon of political retaliation or intimidation, democracy itself becomes the casualty.
“Across Nigeria, we have witnessed a troubling pattern of rushed impeachment proceedings, vague or manufactured allegations, disregard for due process, partisan voting, and, in some cases, contempt for court orders. These practices undermine the rule of law, erode the separation of powers, and weaken public confidence in democratic institutions. More importantly, reckless impeachment efforts amount to an indirect disenfranchisement of voters who freely elected their leaders,” he argued.
He noted that political disagreements are normal in a democracy, adding that removing an elected executive through procedural manipulation is abnormal.
Ubani argued that when legislatures abuse impeachment powers, governance suffers, public resources are diverted into endless political battles and litigation, while investors lose confidence, and the machinery of government becomes paralysed.
He added that a dangerous precedent is also created where every policy disagreement becomes an invitation to institutional warfare.
He said: “In mature democracies, impeachment is rare, deliberate, evidence-driven, and insulated from partisan manipulation.
Nigeria must embrace similar restraint and constitutional discipline. Courts must continue to invalidate unconstitutional impeachments, and lawmakers must respect due process, a fair hearing, and the high threshold required to remove an elected executive. “Political maturity demands dialogue, compromise, and institutional respect, not political brinkmanship. Impeachment must remain a last resort, not a bargaining chip.
“If allowed to continue unchecked, the weaponisation of impeachment will steadily corrode democratic stability and constitutional governance in Nigeria. The time has come for legislators, political leaders, civil society, and the judiciary to collectively defend the sanctity of the Constitution and protect the will of the people.”
Similarly, the Secretary, Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP), Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja, believes that the weaponisation of impeachment by the Rivers State House of Assembly violates Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Impeachment proceedings, he argued, should be a last resort after exhausting all the internal mechanisms of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to which both the governor and the members of the State House of Assembly are now members.
“Sections 224 to 224 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) show that political parties have internal mechanisms for resolution of any disputes between their members; these mechanisms are to be explored and exhausted before resort to impeachment as a final resort,” Jaja said.
Indeed, curbing the abuse of impeachment requires more than constitutional provisions; it demands political maturity. Legislatures must recommit to their oversight role with restraint and integrity, while executives must respect parliamentary independence rather than seek to dominate it.
Stronger judicial enforcement of procedural standards, clearer legislative rules and heightened civic vigilance are essential. Ultimately, impeachment should remain what it was intended to be: an extraordinary remedy for extraordinary misconduct, not a routine instrument for settling political scores.
Until this line is firmly respected, Nigeria’s democratic institutions will remain vulnerable to manipulation — and governance will continue to suffer the consequences.
Credit: Guardian
