A High Court of Cross River State sitting in Ogoja has restrained the Cross River State House of Assembly from taking further steps in 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 the claimant, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit challenging the legality of the impeachment proceedings.

Mr. Yakubu, through his counsel, F. Baba Isa Esq., approached the court to contest the impeachment process initiated by the Ogoja Legislative Council and subsequently acted upon by the State House of Assembly.

Listed as first to seventh defendants in Suit No. HJ/11/2026 are the Ogoja Local Government Legislative Council; the Leader of the Council, Dr. Elizabeth Mbim; the Cross River State House of Assembly; the Chief Judge of Cross River State, Hon. Justice Akon Bassey Ikpeme; the Governor of Cross River State; and the Attorney General of the state.

In the interim order, Justice Kulo restrained the third and fourth defendants, as well as the Cross River State House of Assembly Committee on Legislative Matters, their agents or privies, from continuing with the impeachment proceedings against the claimant pending the determination of the motion on notice.

The court, however, directed the claimant to ensure that all parties are duly served with the originating summons and motion on notice within 14 days, failing which the interim order will lapse.

On February 3, 2026, the Cross River State House of Assembly announced the suspension of Mr. Yakubu for 90 days. The Assembly said the action followed an impeachment notice forwarded by the Ogoja Legislative Council and relied on Section 14(3) of the Cross River State Local Government Law.

The Assembly subsequently referred the matter to its Committee on Judiciary, Public Service Matters, Public Petitions and Conflict Resolution for investigation.

In the suit filed at the Ogoja Judicial Division, Mr. Yakubu is asking the court to interpret Sections 12 (3, 4 and 5), 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, 2007, alongside Sections 6(6)(a) and 7 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The claimant argues that the impeachment process has lapsed by effluxion of time due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedures outlined under Section 12(3)–(5) of the Local Government Law.

According to the provisions cited, the Legislative Council must, within 14 days of receiving a notice of impeachment, resolve by a two-thirds majority whether the allegations 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 investigative panel.

However, court documents filed by the claimant allege that the Legislative Council failed to pass the required resolution within the stipulated 14 days and did not notify the Chief Judge within seven days as mandated by law. Instead, the notice was forwarded to the State House of Assembly, which set up its own committee and suspended the Vice Chairman.

The claimant maintains that this procedure is ultra vires, null and void. The suit also questions the constitutionality of Sections 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, which purportedly empower the Governor and the House of Assembly to suspend or remove elected local government officials.

He contends that the provisions are inconsistent with Sections 1 and 7 of the 1999 Constitution, which uphold constitutional supremacy and guarantee a system of democratically elected local governments.

Speaking on the development, 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 a statute 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 that the Ogoja Legislative Council neither passed the mandatory resolution within the prescribed period nor notified the Chief Judge as required, opting instead to transmit the matter to the House of Assembly.

“That procedure is unknown to the law,” he argued.

On the suspension by the Assembly, the counsel insisted that the State House of Assembly lacks constitutional authority to suspend or remove a democratically elected local government vice chairman.

“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.

He further maintained that where a statute provides a specific method for performing an act, it must be followed strictly, adding that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that principle.