The Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, has explained why he refused to set up a seven-member panel to investigate Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Professor Ngozi Nma Odu, as impeachment moves against them continue.
In Port Harcourt, there were also reports of a quiet, largely empty Government House as the Governor did not resume duties amid the unfolding political crisis.
In a letter addressed to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule, Justice Amadi said he could not act on the lawmakers’ request because of court orders already in place. He urged the Assembly and all parties involved to respect the rule of law and follow due process.
The Rivers Assembly had written to the Chief Judge on Friday, 16 January 2026, asking him to constitute a panel under Section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against the Governor and his deputy. The request came after the Assembly began impeachment proceedings against both officials.
However, Governor Fubara and Professor Odu separately went to the Oyibo division of the Rivers State High Court in Port Harcourt. Each of them obtained interim injunctions that restrained the Chief Judge from receiving, considering, or acting on any request or resolution from the Assembly connected to setting up the panel.
Justice Amadi, in his response dated Tuesday, 20 January 2026, confirmed that his office received both the Assembly’s letter and the court orders. In the letter, he pointed to the interim injunctions as the reason he could not proceed. He said: “My office is also in receipt of two separate court orders of interim injunction issued on 16th January, 2026 in two suits… restraining the 32nd Defendant, that is, the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State, from receiving, forwarding, considering or howsoever acting on any request, resolution, articles of impeachment or other documents from the Assembly for the purpose of constituting a panel to investigate the purported allegations of misconduct.”
The Chief Judge also noted that the lawmakers had appealed the interim orders. He explained that under the principle of lis pendens, all parties are expected to allow the legal process to run its course, meaning no further steps should be taken until the appeals are decided or the cases are concluded.
“Given the above scenario, our legal jurisprudence enjoins the parties to obey the order of interim injunction until it is set aside or the suit is finally determined,” he stated. He added: “In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered, as there are subsisting interim orders of injunction and appeal against the said orders. I am therefore legally disabled at this point from exercising my duties under Section 188(5) of the Constitution in this instance.”
Justice Amadi’s position places the courts at the center of the dispute and underlines the judiciary’s role in ensuring that constitutional steps are followed. It also serves as a warning that political actors and institutions must comply with court directives, even when there is pressure to move quickly.