- Says Assembly’s Decision Lawful, Final, And Conclusive Unless Set Aside By Court
By National Record
THE BENUE State House of Assembly has insisted that it acted within its constitutional mandate by recommending the removal of the state’s Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese.
In a response to a letter from the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters which expressed concerns over the purported removal of Justice Ikpambese, Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, Hon. Aondona Dajoh, stressed that the “decision remains lawful, final, and conclusive, unless set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The letter, dated Wednesday, March 5, 2025, and addressed to the Senate Committee chairman, Senator Adegbomire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN, while reaffirming the Assembly’s commitment to constitutionalism, due process, constructive dialogue and democratic governance, however cautioned that it is essential that all engagements respect the jurisdictional boundaries imposed by the Constitution.
The Speaker, while acknowledging the Senate’s concerns on judicial independence, however stressed the imperatives of the rule of law, asserting that matters concerning the appointment and removal of state judicial officers fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, as outlined in Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution.
“I acknowledge the receipt of your correspondence dated 27th February 2025, wherein the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters conveyed its concerns regarding the purported removal of the Chief Judge of Benue State.
“Permit me to express my utmost respect for the Senate’s commitment to judicial independence, constitutionalism, and due process. The Benue State House of Assembly remains deeply committed to the rule of law and fully recognizes the constitutional safeguards surrounding the tenure and removal of judicial officers as enshrined in Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” Hon Dajoh told Senator Ayodele, SAN.
The Speaker counselled Senator Ayodele, stating that the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters, lacks direct supervisory or oversight authority over State Houses of Assembly in matters that are exclusively within their jurisdiction.
“A careful examination of the Constitution and relevant National Assembly statutes 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.
“However, the Committee may express its advisory concerns as a custodian of constitutional values, in alignment with its broader mandate to safeguard democratic governance. that said, any directive or resolution from the Senate that encroaches upon the constitutional autonomy of State Assemblies would, at best, be persuasive rather than binding,” Dajoh stated.
Defending the Assembly’s role in the Chief Judge’s removal, the Speaker stated that the House acted strictly within its constitutional mandate by deliberating on an executive recommendation and securing the required two-thirds majority vote.
According to him, the Benue State House of Assembly is not constitutionally obliged to verify if the Executive had first engaged with the National Judicial Council (NJC) before forwarding the removal request.
While acknowledging the senate committee’s interest in upholding democratic principles, the Speaker reiterated that any challenge to the legality of the removal should be determined by the courts, not the legislature.
“While we appreciate the Committee’s interest in the matter, we respectfully submit that the constitutional authority to determine the legality or otherwise of the Chief Judge’s removal rests solely with the courts, not the legislature. Any concerns regarding procedural compliance should be judicially adjudicated, rather than subjected to extrajudicial interventions that may undermine the autonomy of State legislative institutions,” the speaker insisted.
Senate’s intervention
The Senate had, through its Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, via a letter dated Thursday, February 27, 2025, and signed by Senator Ayodele, SAN, intervened in the debacle over the removal of Justice Ikpambese.
Senator Ayodele’s letter, entitled; “Re: The Senate Resolution on the Purported Removal of the Chief Judge of Benue State,” reads:
“I write on behalf of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters to express our deep concern over the purported removal of the Chief Judge of Benue State, This action, as we have come to understand, was carried out without due regard to the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, particularly as they pertain to the tenure and removal of judicial officers, as rightly encapsulated under the provision of section 292 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This view of the Senate is predicated upon the contents of the statement issue [sic] by the National Judicial Council and relating to the office of the Chief Judge of the Benue State. [sic]
“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.
“We trust in your commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy. We look forward to your prompt and favorable response to this matter.
“Please, accept the assurances of our highest regards and consideration.
“Senator Adegbonmire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN
“Chairman”
With additional additional reports from Amos Aar
