The Benue State House of Assembly on Wednesday rebuffed insinuations by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, that it acted without due regard to provisions of the Nigerian Constitution in the suspension of the State’s Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese.
The lawmakers insisted that they acted within the ambit of the law.
The position of the lawmakers was contained in a letter dated March 5th, 2025, signed by the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly and addressed to the Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters.
Recall that the Senate had in a letter signed by the Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, Senator Adegbonmire Adeniyi Ayodele, SAN, and addressed to the Speaker of the Benue State House of Assembly, expressed deep concern over the purported removal of the Chief Judge of Benue State, insisting 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.
Adegbonmire 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 Assembly, through the Speaker, 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 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.
“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 said the 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.
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 may undermine the autonomy of the State legislative institutions.
While appreciating the Senate Committee for its concern and insights over the matter, the Speaker reiterated that the Benue State House of Assembly acted well within its constitutional mandate in the case, and as such, its decision remains lawful, final, and conclusive, except set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
