Bayelsa State Deputy Governor, Lawrence Ewhrudjakpo, has instituted a legal action against the State House of Assembly at the Federal High Court in Abuja, alleging moves to impeach him for refusing to defect from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
In the originating summons marked FHC/ABJ/CS/221/2025, Ewhrudjakpo claimed that lawmakers were being pressured to remove him from office following his decision to remain in the PDP — the platform on which he and Governor Douye Diri were elected. Governor Diri recently resigned from the party.
Through his counsel, Reuben Egwuaba, the deputy governor further alleged that several local government chairpersons, including Alice Tange of Sagbama LGA, were also facing threats of removal for declining to defect alongside the governor.
Ewhrudjakpo is seeking a series of interim injunctions to prevent what he described as an unlawful attempt to oust him. He asked the court to restrain the state assembly from initiating or conducting any impeachment proceedings against him in violation of Sections 188(5)–(9), (11) and 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He also sought an order stopping the assembly from recognising or dealing with any member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) or any other party as deputy governor of the state.
Additionally, the deputy governor requested that the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Attorney-General of Bayelsa State be restrained from withdrawing his security protection pending the hearing of his substantive motion.
After hearing the ex parte motion on October 27, Justice Emeka Nwite ordered the defendants to appear before the court to show cause why the interim orders sought by the plaintiff should not be granted.
The defendants listed in the suit include the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, its Speaker, the IGP, the DSS DG, the Attorney-General of Bayelsa State, the Chief Judge of the state, and the Clerk of the Assembly.
In his ruling, Justice Nwite said summoning the defendants to respond would serve the interest of justice.
“The interest of justice will be met by issuing an order for all the defendants to appear and show cause why an order of interim injunction should not be granted against them pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed by the plaintiff,” he stated.
The court adjourned the matter to November 13, directing all defendants to appear and show cause. Should they fail to do so, the court will proceed to hear the substantive motion.
