By Aloysius Umalo, Makurdi
The Benue State House of Assembly has rejected claims by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters that it did not follow the Constitution in the purported suspension of the Benue State Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese.
Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, Aodona Dajoh stated that the state assembly acted within the boundaries of the law in a letter dated March 5th, 2025, and addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights, and Legal Matters.
The Senate Committee had raised concerns in a letter sent to the Benue State House of Assembly about the removal of Justice Ikpambese and urged the Assembly to ensure it was done in accordance with the Constitution.
In response, the Benue State House of Assembly emphasized its commitment to the rule of law and understanding of the constitutional safeguards concerning the tenure and removal of judicial officers.
The Speaker of the Assembly highlighted the constitutional doctrine of federalism and separation of powers, stating that matters regarding judicial officers fall within the jurisdiction of the state government.
While appreciating the Senate Committee's concerns, the Assembly maintained that its decision was lawful and final, subject to judicial review if necessary.
It would be recall that the Senate had in a letter signed by the Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Adegbanmire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN, and addressed to the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, expressing deep concern over the purported removal of the Chief Judge of Benue State, Justice Maurice Ikpambese.
The Senate Committee had insisted that the action was carried out without due regard to the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, particularly in respect to the tenure and removal of judicial officers under the provision of Section 292 of the 1999 constitution.
Senator Ayodele, had urged the Members of the Benue State House of Assembly to take necessary steps to address the issue, ensuring that all the decisions regarding the suspension of Justice Ikpambese, were in accordance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
But in its response, the Benue State House of Assembly through the Speaker, Hon. Aondona Dajoh, said the state Assembly remained deeply committed to the rule of law and fully understands the constitutional safeguards surrounding the tenure and removal of judicial officers as enshrined in Section 292 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Speaker Dajoh, however, asked the Senate to consider the constitutional doctrine of federalism and separation of powers, insisting that matters concerning the appointment and removal of judicial officers fall within the jurisdiction of the state government, subject to constitutional requirement.
According to the Speaker, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters can only play an advisory role, emphasizing that any of their directive or resolution which encroaches on the constitutional autonomy of the State Assembly can only be persuasive, especially as the constitution does not give them the right to superintend over the affairs of the State Assemblies.
“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".
Continuing, the speaker added that ''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.”
He maintained that the state Assembly acted in compliance with the constitutional provisions regarding the removal of Justice Ikpambese, stating that after receiving a letter from the Executive, the matter was put to vote with a two-thirds majority vote secured, thereby fulfilling its constitutional role in the removal process.
