Rivers Crisis: Breach of Agreement Not Valid Grounds for Impeachment – Lawyer Explains

A legal expert and public affairs commentator, Liborous Oshoma, has stated that the alleged violation of an agreement between Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, and his immediate predecessor, Nyesom Wike, cannot legally justify impeachment proceedings against the sitting governor.

Oshoma made this clarification during a weekend appearance on Arise Television, where he offered a detailed legal breakdown of the ongoing political tension in Rivers State. His comments were monitored by LMSINT MEDIA.

According to the legal practitioner, Nigeria’s constitution does not recognize a breach of political agreements as a lawful basis for removing an elected governor from office. He further emphasized that impeachment is strictly guided by constitutional provisions, not political understandings or informal settlements.

Courts Cannot Prevent Impeachment Notices

In his analysis, Oshoma also pointed out that there is no legal provision empowering courts to restrain lawmakers from serving an impeachment notice on a governor. He explained that impeachment notices are legislative processes, and courts typically avoid interfering unless constitutional violations occur during the process.

Background to the Rivers Political Agreement

Oshoma recalled that a similar disagreement over the same political arrangement previously led to the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State in March of the previous year.

He explained that following escalating political tensions, key stakeholders—including the President—intervened. An agreement was drafted, signed by the parties involved, and later authenticated by the President as an executive order.

However, upon returning to Rivers State, Governor Fubara was reportedly advised by close aides and political associates that an executive order issued at the federal level cannot legally compel a state governor. This legal interpretation, Oshoma noted, ultimately triggered the collapse of the agreement.

It was after this breakdown that political statements such as “agreement is disagreement” began to surface publicly, reflecting the deepening rift between both camps.

Illegal Agreements Cannot Be Enforced

Oshoma further stressed that not all agreements are legally enforceable, particularly if their content contradicts constitutional or statutory provisions.

He explained that if any part of the agreement required Governor Fubara to co-approve or jointly assent to a state budget with Nyesom Wike, such a clause would be outright illegal, since Wike is no longer the governor of Rivers State.

Under Nigerian law, a governor cannot delegate or share constitutional responsibilities with a private citizen or former office holder. Therefore, any agreement demanding such action would lack legal standing and cannot be enforced by any court.

Political Control and Executed Provisions

Expanding on the situation, Oshoma acknowledged that some aspects of the agreement may already have been implemented politically, even if they lack legal force.

He cited the current political structure in Rivers State as an example. According to him:

• The faction loyal to Nyesom Wike remains the one officially recognized by the National Working Committee
• Most of the local government chairmen elected in the recent local government elections are reportedly loyal to Wike

These developments, Oshoma suggested, indicate that while the agreement may be politically influential, political dominance does not translate into constitutional authority—especially when it comes to impeachment.

Key Legal Takeaway

Oshoma concluded that impeachment must be based strictly on gross misconduct as defined by the constitution, not on perceived betrayal of political alliances or agreements. Any attempt to remove a governor outside these legal boundaries risks being unconstitutional.