The Cross River High Court has restrained the state assembly and the chief judge from impeaching the vice chairman of Ogoja Local Government Area, Emmanuel Idi Yakubu.

The certified true copy of the restraining order by Justice Daniel Ofre Kulo of the Ogoja division was issued on Wednesday, February 18.

The order reads, “Pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, the third and fourth 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.

“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.”

Mr Kulo issued the restraining order following an ex parte application by the claimant, Mr Yakubu.

The order subsists pending the determination of the substantive issues raised in an originating summons filed by Mr Yakubu via his lawyer, Baba Isa, challenging the legality of the impeachment process initiated against him by the Ogoja Legislative Council and subsequently acted upon by the Cross River assembly.

The seven respondents in the suit number HJ/11/2026 are: Ogoja Local Government Legislative Council; Elizabeth Mbim, the leader of Ogoja Legislative Council; the Cross River State House of Assembly; the state’s chief judge, Justice Akon Bassey Ikpeme; the state governor; and the state attorney general.

The Cross River 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.

Following the development, Mr Yakubu in Suit No. HJ/11/2026 filed at the Ogoja Judicial Division of the High Court sought a 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 7 and 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

In his suit, the claimant contends that the impeachment process has automatically terminated by effluxion of time, having failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements under Sections 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 seven days as required for the constitution of a seven-man investigative panel, and whether the state assembly has the constitutional power to suspend a duly elected vice chairman of a local government.

He cited Section 12(3)–(5) of the law, which provides that within 14 days of presenting an impeachment notice, the legislative council must resolve—by a two-thirds majority—whether the allegation should be investigated. Also, within seven days of such resolution, the leader must notify the chief judge to constitute a panel of seven persons to investigate.

However, the claimant said the legislative council allegedly failed to pass the required resolution within 14 days, to notify the chief judge within seven days of that resolution, and to follow the constitutionally prescribed investigative procedure.

He claimed that, rather, the impeachment notice was forwarded to the state assembly, which then set up its own committee and suspended Mr Yakubu.

The claimant also challenged the constitutionality of Sections 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Cross River State Local Government Law, which purportedly empower the governor and the state 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.