The process of impeaching a governor in Nigeria is outlined in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. It begins with a written allegation of gross misconduct signed by at least one-third of the members of the State House of Assembly. The Speaker of the House must serve the governor with a copy of the notice within seven days.
The governor shall have a right to reply to the allegations, and the State House of Assembly must resolve by motion whether to investigate the allegations. If the motion passes with a two-thirds majority, the Speaker requests the Chief Judge of the State to appoint a panel to investigate the allegations.
If the report of the Chief Judge’s panel on allegations of misconduct against the governor fails to indict the governor, it essentially means that the panel did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegations of gross misconduct. In this case, it means that expectedly and naturally, *no further action will be taken*, and the impeachment process should come to an end.
Therefore, once the Chief Justice’s Panel finds that the allegations of misconduct against the Governor is untrue, the impeachment process stops: The State House of Assembly will not be expected to proceed with the impeachment proceedings, and the governor will continue to serve in office.
Another question will be whether the House of Assembly can expressly overrule the Recommendations of the Chief Judge’s Panel and proceed with the impeachment. According to the Nigerian Constitution, Section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution states:
“Within seven days of the passing of the resolution under subsection (4) of this section, the Chief Judge of the State shall constitute a panel consisting of seven persons of unquestionable integrity, not being members of any public service commission or of any judicial tribunal, to investigate the allegations.”
From the above, it’s crucial to note that the Constitution does *not* specifically make the report of the Chief Justice Panel binding on the House of Assembly.
In practice, this means that the House of Assembly can choose to accept or reject the report of the panel. If the House of Assembly rejects the report, they can proceed with the impeachment process, even if the panel did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegations.
It’s worth noting that the House of Assembly’s decision to overrule the panel’s report can be subject to judicial review. The courts can review the process to ensure that it was conducted fairly and in accordance with the Constitution.
It’s worth noting that the impeachment process is a serious matter, and the Constitution has strict requirements for removing a governor from office. The process is designed to ensure that the governor is given due process and that any allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated.
The State House of Assembly plays a crucial role in the impeachment process. The impeachment process starts and ends with the House of Assembly. They are responsible for initiating the impeachment proceedings, investigating the allegations, and voting on whether to adopt the report of the investigation panel.
The State Attorney General’s role is not explicitly stated in the impeachment process. However, as the chief law officer of the state, they may provide legal guidance and advice to the governor and the State House of Assembly throughout the impeachment proceedings.
The role of the courts in an impeachment process is limited but crucial. They may play the following roles;
Interpretation of the Constitution.
The courts can interpret the Constitution to determine whether the impeachment process is being conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
Review of procedural irregularities.
The courts can review allegations of procedural irregularities during the impeachment process, such as whether the governor was given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Determination of jurisdiction.
The courts can determine whether the State House of Assembly has jurisdiction to impeach the governor, and whether the allegations of misconduct fall within the scope of the impeachment process.
Enforcement of due process.
This is perhaps the most important role a court may play in the process. The courts can ensure that the governor is afforded due process during the impeachment proceedings, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to present evidence.
But in all these, the courts cannot intervene in the impeachment process itself. The courts cannot stop the impeachment process or intervene in the deliberations of the State House of Assembly. They cannot also review the merits of the allegations of misconduct against the governor, as this is a political question for the State House of Assembly to decide. It is also not within the powers of the courts to remove the governor from office, as this is a power vested only in the State House of Assembly, save for cases of Election Petition.
In summary, the courts play a supportive role in ensuring that the impeachment process is conducted fairly and in accordance with the Constitution, but they do not have the power to intervene in the impeachment process itself or remove the governor from office. Even the Supreme Court’s role in the impeachment process is limited. While the court cannot intervene in the impeachment proceedings themselves, it can review the process to ensure that it was conducted in accordance with the Constitution. Recent court cases have established that the courts can determine the legality of the process leading up to the removal of the governor.
In conclusion, the impeachment process is a complex and serious matter that requires careful consideration and adherence to constitutional procedures.
This article is intended to keep both parties in awareness of their rights and obligations under the Law, with regards to the Constitution as it it relates impeachment of a Governor. I have painstakingly highlighted the process and the roles of the various stakeholders involved.
* Rt. Hon. Barr. Chima Obieze, writes from Enugu
Discussion about this post