By Frank Ulom
OGOJA (CONVERSEER) – A High Court of Cross River State sitting in Ogoja has restrained the Cross River State House of Assembly from proceeding with the impeachment process against the Vice Chairman of Ogoja Local Government Area, Emmanuel Idi Yakubu.
The order was granted by Justice Daniel Ofre Kulo following an ex parte application filed by Mr Yakubu, pending the determination of substantive issues raised in an originating summons before the court.
The suit, marked HJ/11/2026, challenges the legality of the impeachment process initiated by the Ogoja Local Government Legislative Council and subsequently acted upon by the Cross River State House of Assembly.
Court Order
In the interim order, Justice Kulo restrained the third and fourth defendants, as well as the House of Assembly Committee on Legislative Matters, their agents or privies, from continuing with the impeachment proceedings against the claimant pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The court further directed that all parties must be served with the originating summons and motion on notice within 14 days, failing which the interim order shall lapse.
Background to the Dispute
The Cross River State House of Assembly had, on 3 February 2026, announced the suspension of Mr Yakubu for 90 days. The Assembly said it acted on an impeachment notice forwarded by the Ogoja Legislative Council, invoking Section 14(3) of the Cross River State Local Government Law.
The Assembly subsequently resolved to suspend the Vice Chairman pending investigation by its Committee on Judiciary, Public Service Matters, Public Petitions and Conflict Resolution.
Mr Yakubu, however, approached the court, arguing that the impeachment process did not comply with statutory provisions and had lapsed by operation of law.
Legal Questions Before the Court
The claimant is seeking judicial interpretation of Sections 12(3), (4) and (5), 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, 2007, as well as Sections 6(6)(a) and 7 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He contends that the impeachment process automatically terminated due to failure to comply with the strict timelines prescribed under Section 12 of the Local Government Law.
Under Section 12(3)–(5), a Legislative Council must, within 14 days of presenting an impeachment notice, resolve by a two-thirds majority whether the allegation should be investigated. Within seven days of such resolution, the Leader of the Council is required to notify the Chief Judge to constitute a seven-member panel to investigate the allegations.
According to court filings, the claimant alleges that the Legislative Council failed to pass the mandatory resolution within 14 days and did not notify the Chief Judge within seven days as required. Instead, the impeachment notice was reportedly forwarded to the State House of Assembly, which set up its own committee and proceeded to suspend him.
Mr Yakubu argues that the action of the Assembly is ultra vires, null and void.
Constitutional Challenge
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 maintains that these provisions are inconsistent with Sections 1 and 7 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee constitutional supremacy and the existence of democratically elected local government councils.
Counsel to the claimant, F. Baba Isa Esq., described 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 seven days means the impeachment process has automatically terminated by effluxion of time,” he said.
He added: “The Ogoja Legislative Council did not pass the mandatory resolution within 14 days, nor did it notify the Chief Judge within seven 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.”
On the suspension by the Assembly, Isa argued that the legislature lacks 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,” he stated.
The matter is expected to return to court for hearing of the substantive motion in the coming weeks.
