… warns Assembly members are ready to resign
… as Tony Okocha-led APC faction justifies lawmakers’ action
Martins Amaewhule, Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, has described Siminalayi Fubara, state governor as a threat to democracy, adding that members of the state legislature are ready to resign if is not removed from office,
Amaewhule who made the statement on Thursday January 8, 2026, said the problem in Rivers State is not between Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and Fubara, but between the governor and the Nigerian Constitution itself.
Amaewhule, while addressing the Assembly on Thursday, said it would be better for lawmakers to resign than allow Fubara to defraud the people of Rivers State.
His remarks reportedly came shortly after the Rivers State House of Assembly formally commenced impeachment proceedings against Governor Fubara and his deputy, Ngozi Odu, following allegations of gross constitutional violations.
The process was initiated on Thursday January 8, 2026 during a plenary session, with 26 lawmakers endorsing the impeachment notice.
Meanwhile, the Tony Okocha-led faction of the Rivers State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC), recognised by the party’s National Working Committee (NWC), has justified the state Assembly’s commencement of impeachment proceedings against Fubara.
Read also: How impeachment works and who becomes governor if Fubara, deputy are removed
In a release on their WhatApp platform, the party said the Assembly is “constitutionally right to commence impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara.”
The party said, “The decision of the Rivers State House of Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara is firmly anchored in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and reinforced by authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“It is a constitutional response to grave allegations of gross misconduct, particularly the unlawful expenditure of Rivers State funds without legislative appropriation, and not an exercise in political vendetta.
“Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) expressly empowers a State House of Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings where a governor is alleged to have committed gross misconduct.
“The Constitution defines gross misconduct as a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the Constitution or misconduct of such nature as amounts, in the opinion of the House of Assembly, to gross misconduct.
“The persistent authorization or approval of public spending without recourse to an Appropriation Law constitutes a direct violation of the Constitution and falls squarely within the meaning of gross misconduct contemplated by Section 188.
“The Constitution further establishes strict legislative control over public finance. Section 120(2) provides that no money shall be withdrawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of a State except in the manner prescribed by the House of Assembly.
“Section 121 requires that all state expenditure for each financial year must be authorized by an Appropriation Law duly passed by the House of Assembly, while Section 122 permits limited spending only in narrowly circumscribed situations and does not sanction continuous or discretionary expenditure without legislative approval. Any sustained deviation from this constitutional framework amounts to fiscal lawlessness and a breach of the supreme law of the land.
“Judicial authority leaves no doubt as to the consequences of such constitutional breaches. In Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423, the Supreme Court affirmed that impeachment is a valid constitutional mechanism for addressing gross misconduct by a governor and that the House of Assembly is constitutionally empowered to determine whether the acts complained of amount to gross misconduct, provided due process is followed. The Court made it clear that executive office does not confer immunity from constitutional accountability.
“Equally instructive is the Supreme Court’s decision in A.G. Federation v. Abia State (No. 2) (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 764) 542, where the Court emphasized that public funds must be expended strictly in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions and that any expenditure undertaken without legislative authorization is illegal, unconstitutional, and void.
“More recently, the Supreme Court, in the case instituted by Martin Amaehule and 26 others against Governor Siminalayi Fubara, arising from the constitutional crisis in Rivers State, delivered a stern rebuke of executive actions that undermined constitutional order and legislative authority. In that judgment, the apex court condemned the manner in which constitutional processes were disregarded and characterized the governor’s conduct as exhibiting despotic tendencies inconsistent with democratic governance and the rule of law.
“The Court reaffirmed that a governor must govern within the confines of the Constitution and that any attempt to sideline or emasculate the House of Assembly, particularly in matters of lawmaking and appropriation, is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
“This judicial pronouncement is highly significant, as it underscores that executive high-handedness and disregard for constitutional limits are not merely political disputes but justiciable violations with serious constitutional consequences.
“It reinforces the principle that the House of Assembly is not a subordinate institution to the executive but a co-equal arm of government vested with oversight and appropriation powers.
“Against this backdrop, the commencement of impeachment proceedings by the Rivers State House of Assembly is a lawful, measured, and constitutionally sanctioned step. Impeachment proceedings do not amount to a finding of guilt; rather, they activate the investigative and adjudicatory process prescribed by Section 188 of the Constitution, including the constitution of an impartial panel and the right of the governor to defend himself.
“What would amount to a dereliction of constitutional duty is for the House of Assembly to ignore credible allegations of unconstitutional spending and executive lawlessness.
“In a constitutional democracy founded on the supremacy of the Constitution, accountability in the management of public funds is non-negotiable.
“The action of the Rivers State House of Assembly therefore represents fidelity to constitutional governance, respect for Supreme Court authority, and a commitment to safeguarding the resources and democratic institutions of Rivers State,” the release said.
