BREAKING: Court Bars Cross River Assembly From Proceeding With Impeachment Of Ogoja Vice Chairman

By Jonathan Ugbal

A High Court of Cross River State sitting in Ogoja and presided over by Justice Daniel Ofre Kulo last week restrained the Cross River State House of Assembly from proceeding further with the impeachment process or taking steps that will culminate in the removal of the Vice Chairman of Ogoja Local Government Area, Emmanuel Idi Yakubu.

The restraining order was issued on Wednesday following an Ex Parte application by the Claimants, pending the determination of the substantive issues raised in an Originating Summons filed by Mr. Yakubu via his lawyer, F. Baba Isa Esq challenging the legality of the impeachment process initiated against him by the Ogoja Legislative Council and subsequently acted upon by the State House of Assembly.

The Ogoja Local Government Legislative Council, Dr. Elizabeth Mbim, Leader of Ogoja Legislative Council, Cross River State House of Assembly, Hon. Justice Akon Bassey Ikpeme (CJ CRS), Governor of Cross River State and Attorney General of Cross River State are listed as first to seventh defendants in the suit number HJ/11/2026.

The Order

In the order sighted by CrossRiverWatch, Justice Kulo ordered that;

1. Pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, the 3rd and 4th defendants / respondents as well as the Cross River State House of Assembly Committee on Legislative matters, their agents and or privies are hereby restrained from continuing with the hearing of the impeachment proceedings against the claimant/applicant.
2. The claimant shall ensure that all the parties are duly served with the originating summons and the motion on notice set down for adoption within fourteen days from the date hereof without which this interim order; shall vacate itself.

Background

Recall that the Cross River State House of Assembly had on February 3, 2026, announced the suspension of Mr. Yakubu for 90 days. 

The Assembly said the suspension followed an impeachment notice forwarded by the Legislative Council and invoked Section 14(3) of the Cross River State Local Government Law, resolving to suspend the Vice Chairman pending investigation by its Committee on Judiciary, Public Service Matters, Public Petitions and Conflict Resolution.

READ MORE: Ogoja Vice Chairman Suspended Over Alleged Misconduct

The suspension followed almost a year of political tussle, which led to his initial resignation from the All Progressives Congress among other intrigues.

READ ALSO: Ogoja Vice Chairman Alleges Governor Otu’s Chief Of Staff’s Impeachment Plans Over Loyalty To Ex-APC Chairman, Alphonsus Eba

Court Challenge and Core Legal Issues

In Suit No: HJ/11/2026, filed at the Ogoja Judicial Division of the High Court, Mr. Yakubu is seeking a judicial interpretation of Sections 12 (3, 4 & 5), 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, 2007, as well as Sections 7 and 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

In his court processes, the Claimant contends that the impeachment process has automatically terminated by effluxion of time, having failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements under Section 12(3), (4) and (5) of the Local Government Law.

The originating summons raised critical questions, including:

• Whether the Ogoja Legislative Council passed the mandatory resolution within 14 days of the notice of impeachment.
• Whether the Leader of the Legislative Council informed the Chief Judge within 7 days as required for constitution of a seven-man investigative panel.
• Whether the State House of Assembly has the constitutional power to suspend a duly elected Vice Chairman of a Local Government.

Section 12(3)–(5) of the Law provides that:

• Within 14 days of presenting an impeachment notice, the Legislative Council must resolve—by two-thirds majority—whether the allegation should be investigated.
• Within 7 days of such resolution, the Leader must notify the Chief Judge to constitute a panel of seven persons to investigate.

However, according to the affidavit and written address filed before the court, the Legislative Council allegedly failed to:

1. Pass the required resolution within 14 days.
2. Notify the Chief Judge within 7 days of such resolution.
3. Follow the constitutionally prescribed investigative procedure.

Instead, the impeachment notice was forwarded to the State House of Assembly, which then set up its own committee and proceeded to suspend the Vice Chairman.

The Claimant argues that this action is ultra vires, null and void.

The suit also challenges the constitutionality of Sections 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, which allegedly empower the Governor and the House of Assembly to suspend or remove elected local government officials.

The Claimant argues that these provisions are inconsistent with Sections 1 and 7 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution and the system of democratically elected local governments.

Claimat’s Counsel Reacts

Counsel to the Claimant, F. Baba Isa Esq. told CrossRiverWatch that the impeachment process as “legally dead.”

“Section 12(3), (4) and (5) of the Cross River State Local Government Law is clear and unambiguous. Where the law prescribes a timeline and procedure, it must be strictly complied with. Failure to act within the statutory 14 days and subsequent 7 days means the impeachment process has automatically terminated by effluxion of time,” Baba Isa said.

He continued, “the Ogoja Legislative Council did not pass the mandatory resolution within 14 days, nor did it notify the Chief Judge within 7 days as required. Instead, they forwarded the notice to the House of Assembly, which set up its own committee. That procedure is unknown to the law.”

When queried on the suspension by the Assembly, he stated that; “The Cross River State House of Assembly has no constitutional authority to suspend or remove a democratically elected Vice Chairman of a Local Government. Section 7 of the Constitution guarantees the existence and autonomy of local governments. Any state law that purports to grant such power is unconstitutional to the extent of its inconsistency.”

Furthermore, he emphasized that; “you cannot abandon the statutory route provided under Section 12 and then invent a parallel process through the House of Assembly. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where a statute provides a method of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”