The Rivers State Judiciary has dismissed claims made by a former Chief Magistrate, Ejike King George, who cited political discomfort as the reason for his exit from judicial service.
Contrary to his publicized statements, the judiciary insists George was compulsorily retired for misconduct after facing disciplinary proceedings.
In a statement issued Tuesday in Port Harcourt, Chief Registrar of the Rivers State High Court, David Ihua Maduenyi, revealed that Mr. George’s retirement was not voluntary, but enforced due to his prolonged absence from duty without official authorization — spanning from August 2023 to December 2024.
According to Maduenyi, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) initiated an inquiry into Mr. George’s absenteeism following formal complaints.
A disciplinary panel found him culpable and gave him the option of either voluntary or compulsory retirement.
The Commission ultimately approved the latter, which took effect on February 10, 2025.
The clarification comes in response to a letter widely circulated by Mr. George, in which he claimed to have resigned over concerns about what he described as a “quasi-military administration” currently overseeing Rivers State.
He argued that the present leadership contradicts democratic principles and undermines the values of the legal profession.
“The attempt to frame his removal as politically motivated is both deceptive and irresponsible,” Maduenyi stated. “It is a deliberate distortion of facts intended to manipulate public opinion and garner undue sympathy.”
READ ALSO: Rivers Chief Magistrate Resigns Over Tinubu’s Emergency Decree
The political backdrop in Rivers State has been turbulent since President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency earlier this year.
The move led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy Ngozi Odu, and the entire state legislature.
In their place, the President appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas to oversee the state’s affairs.
While critics of the federal intervention have raised concerns about democratic backsliding, the presidency defended the decision as necessary to stabilize a worsening political crisis.
Mr. George’s letter appears to tap into these anxieties, suggesting his departure was an ethical stance against what he sees as a dangerous shift in governance.
However, the judiciary’s account points instead to professional misconduct and internal disciplinary measures that preceded his exit.
The contrasting narratives highlight the increasingly fraught intersection between the judiciary and the political environment in Rivers State — raising further questions about transparency, accountability, and the politicization of public service.