Ethical corruption: jurisdiction of the state high court and the propriety of the impeachment procedure undertaking by the rivers state house of assembly

The procedure for the removal of a State Governor or Deputy Governor in Nigeria is expressly provided for under section 188 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Despite the apparent clarity of these provisions, impeachment proceedings in Nigeria have consistently generated controversy, largely due to political interference, ethical deficits, and disputes over procedural compliance. This article critically examines the jurisdiction of the State High Court in impeachment related matters and interrogates the propriety of the impeachment (removal) proceedings initiated by the Rivers State House of Assembly against the Governor and Deputy Governor of Rivers State. Employing a combined doctrinal and empirical research methodology, the study analyses constitutional provisions, judicial authorities, legislative practice, and primary data obtained through observation of legislative proceedings and interviews with principal legislative actors. The article interrogates whether section 188(10) of the Constitution ousts judicial oversight over procedural compliance, identifies the court of competent jurisdiction in impeachment related disputes in light of section 272(3) of the Constitution, and evaluates the legality and ethical implications of claims of non-service of notices of allegation of gross misconduct by public office holders. The article argues that while courts are constitutionally barred from interrogating the merits of impeachment proceedings, they retain jurisdiction to inquire into procedural compliance. It further highlights the appropriate court with competent jurisdiction to make this interrogation. The article concludes that the Rivers State House of Assembly substantially complied with constitutional requirements and that the denial of service by the Governor and Deputy Governor amounts to ethical corruption aimed at stalling a sui generis constitutional process. The study recommends targeted constitutional and procedural reforms to eliminate ambiguity, curb abuse of judicial processes, and strengthen ethical accountability in public office.