A pro-democracy advocacy group has defended the decision of the Chief Judge of Rivers State, Simeon Amadi, to decline the constitution of a judicial panel to probe Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, describing the move as lawful, principled, and consistent with constitutional requirements.
In a statement issued on Friday, the Coalition for Democratic Accountability and Rule of Law (CDARL) said the chief judge acted within the bounds of the law by rejecting the request of the Rivers State House of Assembly, citing subsisting court orders and a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The group’s national president, Barrister Ibrahim Lawal Abdulkareem, said Justice Amadi’s explanation that his hands were “fettered” by interim injunctions restraining him from taking any action connected to impeachment proceedings reflected strict adherence to judicial ethics and the rule of law, not political bias.
“Justice Amadi did exactly what the Constitution and judicial discipline demand. Once a court of competent jurisdiction issues an order, every individual and institution, including the legislature and the chief judge himself, is bound by it,” Abdulkareem said.
According to CDARL, the interim orders restraining the chief judge from receiving, considering, or acting on any impeachment-related request left him with no lawful discretion under Section 188(5) of the Constitution. The group warned that any attempt to proceed in defiance of such orders would amount to judicial recklessness and a violation of constitutional norms.
The coalition further explained that the doctrine of lis pendens, cited by the chief judge in his correspondence with the speaker of the assembly, is a settled legal principle intended to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings and prevent parallel actions that could prejudice the outcome of a pending appeal.
“When a matter is before a higher court, all parties are required to maintain the status quo. The chief judge’s refusal to act while an appeal is pending is not obstruction; it is constitutional discipline,” Abdulkareem said.
CDARL cautioned that any attempt by the Rivers State House of Assembly to continue impeachment steps despite the interim injunctions could amount to a direct challenge to judicial authority and risk plunging the state into a constitutional crisis.
“The impeachment of a sitting governor is one of the gravest powers entrusted to a legislature. It is not a political shortcut and certainly not a process that can be pursued in defiance of court orders,” the statement read.
The group stressed that the ongoing political tension in Rivers State can only be de-escalated through strict compliance with judicial directives, noting that the courts exist to arbitrate disputes between arms of government when political processes break down.
“Lawmakers weaken democracy when they treat court orders as inconveniences to be bypassed. The judiciary is not an obstacle to governance; it is the stabilising referee in moments of institutional conflict,” Abdulkareem said.
CDARL urged the Rivers Assembly to exercise restraint and await the determination of the appeal before taking any further steps, adding that constitutional patience is essential for democratic stability.
“The chief judge’s request for understanding was not a plea; it was a reminder that no arm of government is above the law,” the coalition said.
The group emphasised that its position was not a defence of any political officeholder but a principled stand in support of judicial independence and constitutional order, warning that sustained disregard for court orders could erode public trust and weaken democratic institutions.
In this article