Rivers: Lawmaker Insists No Political Fix Can Stop Fubara’s Impeachment Process

The Rivers State House of Assembly has reiterated that political negotiations may no longer be capable of stopping the ongoing impeachment process against Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

This position was made public by the Assembly’s spokesperson, Enemi George, during a televised political discussion aired on Channels Television on Thursday and monitored by LMSINT MEDIA.

According to George, attempts to frame the actions of the Rivers State House of Assembly as purely political undermine the integrity and independence of the legislative institution. He stressed that the lawmakers’ actions should not be dismissed as political drama but viewed through the lens of constitutional responsibility.

The lawmaker maintained that the impeachment move is not driven by political rivalry but by repeated alleged violations of financial and constitutional procedures by the governor. He accused Governor Fubara of persistently handling public funds in a manner inconsistent with legal provisions, likening it to the use of government resources as personal assets.

George explained that several political interventions had already been explored in the past, yet the same issues continued to resurface. He questioned the relevance of pursuing further political settlements when previous efforts failed to yield lasting compliance with the law.

He emphasized that even political engagement must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries. According to him, once an elected official repeatedly breaches legal frameworks, such actions inevitably attract consequences that cannot be avoided through political sympathy or negotiation.

The Assembly spokesperson further noted that the matter before the lawmakers is fundamentally legal rather than political. He insisted that the constitution remains supreme and that no individual, regardless of office, is above its provisions.

George also referenced the role of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in earlier peace efforts, stating that the president had personally invested time and effort in bringing together relevant stakeholders to resolve the crisis. He argued that repeated violations after such interventions could be perceived as disregard for both the peace process and the authority of those who facilitated it.

According to the lawmaker, expecting continued presidential intervention after alleged repeated breaches of agreements and constitutional norms is unrealistic. He concluded that respect for the rule of law must take precedence over political considerations, especially when governance and public trust are at stake.