The Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, has explained his refusal to constitute a seven-member panel to investigate Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Nma Odu, citing subsisting court orders restraining him from taking such action.
Justice Amadi made this clarification in a formal letter addressed to the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Martin Amaewhule, stressing that respect for the rule of law compelled his decision.
The House of Assembly had, on January 16, 2026, requested the Chief Judge to set up a panel pursuant to Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution, following the commencement of impeachment proceedings against the Governor and his deputy over allegations of gross misconduct.
However, both Governor Fubara and his deputy separately approached the Oyibo Division of the Rivers State High Court, where they obtained interim injunctions restraining the Chief Judge from receiving, considering, or acting upon any request from the Assembly relating to the constitution of an investigative panel.
In his letter dated January 20, 2026, Justice Amadi confirmed receipt of the Assembly’s request as well as the court orders.
“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 Honourable 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,” he stated.
The Chief Judge noted that the Assembly had filed appeals against the interim injunctions but emphasised that, under settled principles of law, the orders remain binding until set aside.
Invoking the doctrine of lis pendens, Justice Amadi explained that all parties are legally bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the appeals.
“Our legal jurisprudence enjoins parties to obey orders of court, including interim injunctions, until they are set aside or the substantive suits are finally determined,” he said.
“In view of the foregoing, my hand is fettered, as there are subsisting interim orders of injunction and appeals 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 underscores the judiciary’s constitutional role as a neutral arbiter and reinforces the principle that political processes must bow to judicial authority where court orders are in force.