Fubara, to Go or Not…..

The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Rivers State is back in the news again, and as usual,  not for anything pleasant. Nigerians thought that having been out of office for six months, that as soon as the Rivers State Executive and Legislature resumed work in September 2025, they would hit the ground running. Alas, we were wrong.

Notice of Allegations Against Governor Fubara and Deputy Governor Odu

Last week, on January 8, 2026 to be precise, the Rivers State House of Assembly (RSHA)  commenced removal proceedings against the State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara and his Deputy, Professor Ngozi Odu, in accordance to Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution). It appears that there are allegations of gross misconduct against them, such as budgetary impropriety, failure to present the 2026 Budget Appropriation Bill, alleged extra-budgetary expenditure without approval from the RSHA, and financial neglect of the RSHA and Rivers State Judiciary. It is unclear whether the accusation of unlawfully demolishing the RSHA Complex against Governor Fubara, which may amount to an act of terrorism (destruction of a Government Facility), is among the new allegations – see the definition of Terrorism in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA).

Highly Inflammable Governor

Governor Fubara appears to be a person, whom we describe in Yoruba, as one who people want to set fire to, but, strangely, assists the ignition  process by rubbing petrol on his body, thereby making himself highly inflammable, instead of perhaps, sitting in a pool of water to make himself non-flammable. On 17/3/2025, a Notice of 5 Allegations was submitted by 26 RSHA Members against Governor Fubara; therefore, he shouldn’t have created any avenue for history to repeat itself, particularly as the Supreme Court had declared in a 2024 case, that Rivers State had had no government at the time. For one, over three months after resumption, the key Ministries in Rivers State, such as Justice, Finance, and Education are said not to have Commissioners.

In Borishade v NBN 2007 1 N.W.L.R. Part 1015 Page 217 at 241 per Monica Dongban-Mensem, JCA (now PCA), the Court of Appeal noted that “there has been no clear definition under the law of this nation, as to what constitutes a misconduct”. In Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju & 17 Ors v Hon. Abraham Adeleke & 3 Ors (2002) LPELR-1510 (SC) per Dahiru Musdapher, JSC, the Supreme Court  gave the statutory definition of gross misconduct as “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution, or a misconduct of such a nature as amounts to, in the opinion in the House of Assembly, gross misconduct”.  The Apex Court per Niki Tobi, JSC went on to define “gross” in this context as “atrocious, colossal, deplorable, disgusting, dreadful, enormous, gigantic, grave, heinous, outrageous, odious and shocking”. It is clear that breaching the provisions of the Constitution, could be gross misconduct. For instance, a public official breaching the Code of Conduct, or withdrawal of monies from public funds without approval of the State House of Assembly (see Sections 209 & 120(3) & (4) of the Constitution). Governor Fubara stands accused of the latter.

A notice of removal containing allegations of misconduct, signed by at least one-third of RSHA Members, was presented to the Speaker of the RSHA. Governor Fubara and Professor Odu, obviously have a right to defend themselves against the allegations. But, whether they  respond or not, within 14 days of presentation of the allegations to the Speaker, a resolution of a motion of whether or not to investigate the allegations, must be passed. The resolution to investigate must be passed by at least a two-thirds majority of the RSHA, and within seven days of this, the Chief Judge of Rivers State, upon the request of the RSHA Speaker, shall appoint a Panel of seven persons to investigate the allegations, and report its findings within three months – see Section 188(2)-(7) of the Constitution. Where the allegations remain unproven, no further removal proceedings in the matter shall continue.

But, in 2019, in the case of former Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr Simeon Achuba, the then Chief Judge of Kogi State, Hon. Justice Nasiru Ajanah, instituted a Panel to investigate the allegations levelled against Mr Achuba. Though the findings of the Panel were that the allegations of misconduct against Mr Achuba were unproven, the Kogi State House of Assembly (KSHA) still went ahead to remove Mr Achuba, in breach of  Section 188(8) of the Constitution. See AG Kogi State & Ors v Achuba & Ors (2024) LPSLR-61940 (CA); Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors v Achuba & Ors (2024) LPELR-61938(CA).

On the other hand, if the allegations of misconduct are proven, within 14 days of receipt of the report, the report is adopted by a motion of at least two-thirds of the House of Assembly, and the Governor and/or Deputy shall stand removed on the date of the adoption of the report – see Section 188(9) of the Constitution.

However, Section 188(10) of the Constitution which seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the courts from the proceedings of the Panel or the House of Assembly in the removal of a Governor or Deputy, appears to be unconstitutional, as it goes against the rules of natural justice, the right to fair hearing enshrined in Section 36(1) of the Constitution, and Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution which gives the courts the powers to adjudicate on all matters except those mentioned in Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution, that is, the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, which such removal proceedings are not a part of. In the case of Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju & 17 Ors v Hon. Abraham Adeleke & 3 Ors (Supra) per Sunday Akinola Akintan, JSC, Governor Ladoja was restored to his position as Governor of Oyo State, on the ground that the process that led to his removal was faulty. It is trite that the removal process set out in Section 188, must be followed to the letter, if not, it can be challenged. In Hon. Muyiwa Inakoju & 17 Ors v Hon. Abraham Adeleke & 3 Ors (Supra) for example, there were eight infractions that were cited in Governor Ladoja’s removal process, including Legislators sitting at D’Rovans Hotel instead of the House of Assembly to deliberate on the removal, and instead of sending the notice of the allegations to the Speaker of the Oyo State House of Assembly, publishing it in the newspapers (see Section 188(2)(a) & (b) of the Constitution).

Let’s wait and see, how the Fubara/Odu removal matter plays out. Will the RSHA complete the removal process, or are they just grandstanding? Only time will tell.

Agreement Not to Seek a Second Term

Sections 180(1)(a), (2) & 182(1)(b) provide unequivocally, that a Governor holds office until his successor is sworn in, that a term of office is four years, and a candidate cannot serve for more than two terms, that is, eight years. This is what the Constitution recognises. The Constitution doesn’t recognise any term elongation beyond two terms in office, or a third term to be served vicariously through a successor-in-office. Therefore, any predecessor-in-office that installs a successor-in-office (to do his/her bidding), does so at their own peril, as there is no law to support this action.

Consequent upon the foregoing, any agreement that a candidate who has only served one term mustn’t seek a second term, is against public policy, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio and unenforceable, unless of course such Governor is found to be suffering from any of the impediments listed in Section 182 of the Constitution that disqualifies him/her from running (also see Section 1(1) & (3) of the Constitution). Such agreement is inconsistent with Section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution. See Fasel Services Ltd & Anor v NPA & Anor (2009) LPELR-1245(SC) per Mahmoud Mohammed, JSC on the non-enforceability of illegal contracts.

The only way to ensure that such a candidate doesn’t get a second term, is either to support a stronger aspirant that will secure the party ticket at the primaries, or, if the unwanted candidate is still able to secure the party ticket, support another candidate against the unwanted candidate during the election. This latter option was adopted by the then ‘G5 PDP Governors’ who decided not to support former Vice President, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, GCON, the PDP Presidential candidate in the 2023 election. They supported APC’s President Bola Tinubu, GCFR instead, and he won the election.

Conclusion

It is unfortunate that all the trouble in Rivers State, has absolutely nothing to do with the betterment of the welfare of the people (see Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution). It is about a scramble for power, control and State funds! From where we are sitting, we can see that the only person so far, that will certainly gain from the war, is President Bola Tinubu, GCFR, as the two opposing sides, even though they are not in any type of alliance, have pledged their allegiance to the President’s second term bid, and are eager to outdo themselves on who will deliver victory to him in Rivers State!