The reported attempt by some members of the Benue State House of Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against the then Governor, Samuel Ortom, raises important questions about constitutional procedure, legislative responsibility and the limits of political power.
The removal of a sitting governor under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, is not a process that can be undertaken casually or driven solely by political disagreements. Section 188 of the Constitution establishes a detailed procedure that must be followed before a governor or deputy governor can be removed from office.
These constitutional safeguards are not mere formalities. They are designed to prevent the abuse of legislative powers and ensure that the removal of an elected executive officeholder is founded on constitutional grounds and due process.
One of the first requirements under Section 188(2) is that a written notice alleging gross misconduct must be signed by not less than one-third of the members of the State House of Assembly. The notice must contain detailed particulars of the allegations and be presented to the Speaker.
It is important to distinguish this initial requirement from the subsequent stages of the process. Under Section 188(3), a motion that the allegation be investigated must receive the support of not less than two-thirds of all members of the House of Assembly. Therefore, satisfying the initial one-third threshold does not automatically validate or complete the impeachment process.
The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional requirements governing impeachment proceedings in Dapianlong v. Dariye (2007) and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007). These decisions underscore the importance of complying with the constitutional procedure and the consequences of disregarding its mandatory provisions.
Another critical issue is the meaning of gross misconduct. Section 188(11) provides the constitutional definition, while judicial interpretation has helped establish the limits within which the legislature may exercise its powers.
In my considered view, impeachment should never become an instrument for settling political scores, punishing dissent or removing an elected governor simply because of disagreements with members of the legislature. Allegations of gross misconduct must be properly particularised and considered within the constitutional framework.
The procedure also requires proper service of the notice on the governor and members of the House, as provided by Section 188(2). In Dapianlong v. Dariye, the Supreme Court considered the validity of purported service through newspaper publication and the requirements for proper service under the Constitution.
Furthermore, the House of Assembly must act as a constitutionally constituted legislative body. A gathering of a faction of lawmakers cannot automatically assume the authority of the entire House or exercise constitutional powers without satisfying the applicable requirements.
The role of the courts in impeachment proceedings has also been clarified by the Supreme Court. Although Section 188(10) contains a provision restricting judicial interference, the courts retain the authority to examine whether the mandatory constitutional requirements preceding the exercise of the legislature’s impeachment powers have been satisfied.
In Inakoju v. Adeleke, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of compliance with the provisions of Section 188(1) to (9), making it clear that the constitutional process cannot be reduced to an unrestricted political exercise.
The implication is straightforward: the legislature has the constitutional authority to initiate and conduct impeachment proceedings, but that authority must be exercised within the boundaries established by the Constitution.
A governor is not above the law, just as members of a State House of Assembly are not above the Constitution. Both institutions must operate within their respective constitutional responsibilities.
From the foregoing, it is my position that impeachment proceedings, being a special constitutional process, must be conducted with strict regard for due process, fair hearing and the rule of law. Any attempt to circumvent the prescribed procedure risks undermining the legitimacy of the entire exercise.
Ultimately, the Constitution must remain supreme. Political expediency must never be allowed to override constitutional order, and the removal of an elected governor must never become a convenient tool for legislative or political manoeuvring.
