Impeachment as we know it; The Fubara Test Case

By ESV Rt. Hon. Remmy Hazzan

Impeachment is meant to be a constitutional safeguard; a serious tool for holding leaders accountable and protecting democracy from reckless actions. But in Nigeria, it has turned into something much more political than legal, more about strategy than principles.

The current situation with the potential impeachment of Siminalayi Fubara, the Governor of Rivers State, has become a crucial test, not just for the governor’s role, but for how impeachment is perceived and experienced by Nigerians.

To really grasp the seriousness of the Fubara situation, we need to look beyond the textbook definition of impeachment and see it through the lens of Nigeria’s political landscape. It’s rarely just about breaking the law; it’s often tied to shifts in power, agreements among the elite, and the stance of the federal government.

While the law lays out the process, it’s the political climate that ultimately decides the outcome. So, whenever there’s a threat of impeachment in Nigeria, it raises a bigger question: where does everyone stand in the broader power dynamics?

The rules for removing a governor are clearly laid out in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This section outlines a detailed process that includes the State House of Assembly, investigation panels, and judicial oversight. On paper, it looks thorough, complex, and seemingly protected from misuse.

However, Nigeria’s democratic history shows that just following the rules doesn’t always mean it’s legitimate, and legality doesn’t always ensure justice. The first major flaw in Nigeria’s impeachment process stems from the political makeup of the State Houses of Assembly. Legislators often lack true independence; they’re typically shaped by party affiliations, influential godfathers, and the sway of the executive branch.

When a governor has a firm grip on the assembly, the chances of impeachment are virtually nonexistent. Conversely, if the assembly is antagonistic, impeachment becomes a constant threat. This situation means that impeachment is often less about actual misconduct and more about political loyalties.

The Fubara test case highlights this issue vividly. The controversies surrounding his administration aren’t new, nor are they particularly shocking by Nigerian standards. What is unusual, however, is the timing, the intensity, and the political implications of the impeachment threats. This has led to public skepticism that if the process goes forward, it may be driven more by political maneuvering than by any real constitutional breaches.

Another crucial aspect that often gets overlooked in public debates is Nigeria’s security framework. Even with a federal system in place, the police, armed forces, and key security agencies are firmly under the control of the Federal government. This reality has significant consequences for impeachment.

A governor facing removal, without at least the federal government remaining neutral, finds themselves exposed, vulnerable, and largely defenseless. Security agencies play a quiet yet vital role during impeachment scenarios. They’re responsible for securing legislative buildings, enforcing court orders, maintaining (sometimes even disrupting) public order, and determining who has physical control over state institutions. In past impeachment cases, the party in charge of security essentially held the reins of the entire process. This makes the federal position not just significant, but absolutely crucial.

Looking back, impeaching governors in Nigeria has seldom been successful unless the central government either lent its support or chose to look the other way. When the central authority opposed impeachment, courts intervened, assemblies crumbled, and the attempts at impeachment fizzled out.

On the flip side, when the central government was on board, things moved swiftly, often skipping over thorough scrutiny, with legality being adjusted after the fact. This historical pattern is what makes the Fubara case a true test. It raises the question of whether impeachment can actually succeed without clear backing from the federal level. Can a governor be constitutionally removed in Nigeria based solely on the political will at the state level? Or does the federal stance still serve as an invisible veto over local democracy?

Another important aspect to consider is the role of the Chief Judge in the state. According to Section 188, the Chief Judge is tasked with forming the investigative panel when impeachment proceedings move forward. This role is intended to bring a sense of neutrality and judicial integrity to the process.

However, in reality, it often ends up favouring the governor instead. The reason for this is quite straightforward and rooted in the structure: the governor has the power to appoint the Chief Judge. Even though judicial officers pledge to uphold their independence, the truth is that the dynamics of appointments, career advancement, and loyalty to the institution can’t be overlooked. This creates a tricky situation where a judge is expected to oversee a process that could potentially oust the very person who appointed him.

In many cases of impeachment, this judicial phase turns into a dead end for the process. Panels are formed, meetings get postponed, procedural challenges arise, and technicalities start to pile up. What initially begins as a legislative push often fades into judicial hesitance. This pattern has consistently provided beleaguered governors with the necessary time to weather the storm. In the Fubara scenario, the judicial aspect is a significant concern.

Any attempt at impeachment that makes it to the panel stage has to navigate not just the legal complexities but also the political implications. A Chief Judge seen as complicit could face public outrage and harm to the institution’s reputation. On the flip side, a Chief Judge viewed as antagonistic risks being isolated within the judiciary. Either way, the whole process is quite challenging.

Public opinion, however, might be the most overlooked factor in this evolving situation. Right now, the general sentiment is strongly against Fubara’s impeachment. Many people see this move as hasty, destabilizing, and driven by political motives. In a time of economic struggles and governance fatigue, impeachment feels to many like an unnecessary diversion from more pressing social issues.

This public pushback carries more weight now than it did in the past. With social media amplifying voices, civil society keeping a watchful eye, and a more politically aware populace, impeachment can’t just happen behind closed doors anymore. Today, legitimacy isn’t just about following the constitution; it’s also about how the public perceives the situation and the moral authority behind it.

When impeachment lacks public support, it gets pretty tricky. Lawmakers start to tread lightly, judges become more meticulous, and federal officials think twice before taking action. No political process can thrive in an atmosphere of widespread skepticism. That’s why the current public opinion acts as a vital shield for the Fubara administration. Yet, the politics surrounding impeachment in Nigeria has never been entirely rational.

There are times when key figures push ahead even when the public is against them, relying on their institutional power rather than popular backing. This is where the Fubara situation becomes significant: it will reveal whether Nigeria’s democracy has evolved beyond simple political maneuvering into something that is truly responsive and accountable.

Moreover, this case raises broader questions about federalism. If states can’t resolve executive-legislative conflicts on their own without federal intervention, then Nigeria’s federal system is fundamentally flawed. True federalism means that state institutions should function independently without constantly deferring to the central authority. Impeachment should ideally be a rare and serious matter, grounded in clear evidence of wrongdoing.

Yet in Nigeria, it has turned into a frequent, strategic, and at times, vengeful act. This shift has really taken away from the moral authority of impeachment, making it less credible as a tool for democracy.

The situation with Fubara prompts Nigerians to reconsider what impeachment truly means. Is it a constitutional last resort or just a pawn in political games? Is its purpose to safeguard democracy or to stifle political opposition? The answers to these questions will not only influence this particular case but also set the tone for future ones.

For Governor Fubara, staying in power will hinge on more than just legal strategies; it will require political savvy; navigating alliances, easing tensions, and keeping the public on his side. Those governors who manage to weather impeachment threats often do so by turning their vulnerabilities into bargaining power.

As for the State House of Assembly, their credibility is on the line. If the impeachment process is seen as reckless or driven by partisanship or parochial interests, it could seriously undermine their authority. Lawmakers need to balance short-term political wins with the long-term reputation of their institution.

When it comes to the federal government, whether they choose to speak up or stay silent will be seen as a stance. In Nigeria, people often don’t trust neutrality. No matter if they’re in support, against, or just indifferent, the government’s attitude will influence outcomes in both subtle and obvious ways.

Ultimately, the Fubara test case is about more than just one governor. It raises the question of whether impeachment in Nigeria can evolve from a mere tool of power into a genuine means of accountability. It’s about whether constitutionalism can prevail over political convenience. And it’s about whether Nigerian democracy is finally ready to take itself seriously.

ESV Rt. Hon. Remmy Hazzan, FNIVS is a Public Affairs Analyst. He writes from Yenagoa, Bayelsa State

FOOTNOTE: You want to share story with us? You want to advertise with us? You need publicity for product, or service, or   event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348073463653 or email [email protected]