The Benue State House of Assembly has dismissed claims by the Senate that it acted outside the provisions of the law to recommend the removal of the Chief Judge of the State, Justice Maurice Ikpambese from office.
Recall that the Senate had in a letter signed by the Senate Committee Chairman on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Adegbanmire Ayodele, and addressed to the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, expressed concern over the purported removal of Ikpambese, insisting that the action contravened Section 292 of the 1999 constitution.
Part of the letter read, “The Senate has considered and deliberated on the matter extensively. Thus, we believe that it is imperative to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the judiciary remains Independent and impartial. The removal of a Judge without following constitutional procedure undermines the integrity of the judicial system and sets a dangerous precedent.”
“Accordingly, we respectfully request that the House of Assembly takes the necessary steps to address this issue and ensure that all steps taken in respect of the Chief Judge of Benue State accord with the provisions of the Constitution.”
But in its response, the Benue State House of Assembly through the Speaker, Hyacinth Dajoh said the state Assembly remained deeply committed to the rule of law and took notice of the constitutional safeguards surrounding the tenure and removal of judicial officers as enshrined in Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
He said: “A careful examination of the constitution and relevant National Assembly statues does not expressly vest the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters with direct supervisory or oversight authority over State Houses of Assembly in matters that are exclusively within their jurisdiction. See Section 4(2) and 88 of the 1999 Constitution.”
“The Benue State House of Assembly recognizes the sanctity of the judiciary and the necessity of ensuring that all actions conform strictly to the due process provisions of the constitution. To this end, the House remains steadfast in ensuring that its resolutions align with constitutional provisions.”
“The House of Assembly, in carrying out this duty, had no constitutional obligation to investigate or verify whether the Executive had in the first instance, transmitted such correspondence to the National Judicial Council (NJC), as required under Section 292(1)(a)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution.”
“The constitutional architecture does not vest the State House of Assembly with investigative oversight over the Executive’s procedural engagements with the NJC. Rather, the House’s role was strictly limited to voting on the recommendation for removal, once duly presented by the Executive.”
“The Benue State House of Assembly remains unwavering in its edherence to constitutional due Process and respects the independence of the judiciary.”
“However, in fulfilling its legislative responsibilities, the House acted strictly within the ambit of the law and cannot be held accountable for any preliminary procedural steps that fall within the purview of the Executive and the NJC.”
The Speaker insisted that any concerns regarding the procedural compliance of the matter should be judicially adjudicated rather than subjected to extra judicial interventions that might undermine the autonomy of the State legislative institutions.
The Speaker reiterated that the Benue State House of Assembly acted well within its constitutional mandate in the matter and as such, its decision remained lawful, final, and conclusive, except set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
