Impeachment is an effective mechanism for checks and balances in a constitutional democracy. It is settled that the courts have no power to intervene in the process by questioning the exercise of the powers of the legislature. However, there has been a gradual departure from the general norm in recent years. The involvement of the courts in the impeachment process provides an opportunity to review the legislative process of the impeachment to prevent legislative rascality or abuse of the process and infringing on the fundamental rights of the target of the impeachment. Thus, judicial involvement in the process underscores the importance of the constitutional doctrine of checks and balances. Notable decided cases in Nigeria on impeachment proceedings since the case of Adegbenro v Akintola, were examined and reviewed. Relevant constitutional provisions on impeachment and judicial decisions thereon were highlighted. It was noted that impeachment could not, hitherto, be a subject of litigation in any court in Nigeria on account of constitutional ouster clauses. It was noted further that even though ouster clauses, are regarded as impediments to the administration of justice and by extension democracy, the courts were quick to invoke ouster clauses to decline jurisdiction in matters relating to impeachment. However, the paper found that the decision in Inakoju v Adeleke, which decided that ouster clauses need to be properly scrutinised by courts, besides being a watershed in the judicial approach to impeachment cases, is capable of checkmating the legislature’s seeming highhandedness in the impeachment process in Nigeria.
Keywords: Nigeria, attitude of courts, impeachment cases, impeachment process
