SACK OF C. J., GOV. ALIA’S DENIAL: WHAT NEXT?
Following a brief lull in the case of a divided Benue State House of Assembly over the sack of the Benue Chief Judge, Governor Hyacinth Alia broke the silence on Wednesday 26th February 2025 on Channels Tv when he denied removing the C.J of the State.
It will be recalled that the Benue State House of Assembly on the 20th of February received a letter from the Attorney-General on behalf of the Executive Governor of Benue state, His Excellency Rev. Fr. Dr. Hyacinth Alia. The letter which was received by the speaker of the Assembly, Hon. Aondona Dajoh, was read by the majority leader of the BSHA, Hon. Terseer Tiser on the floor of the Assembly. In the letter, the governor accused the Benue state Chief Judge, His lordship Maurice Ikpambese of gross misconduct and abuse of office.
The Benue State 10th Assembly, however, invoked section 292 (a) (ii) which gives the assembly the constitutional power to remove a judicial officer by putting the matter to voting, a resolution supported by 23 out of 31 members who voted in plenary for the resolution to remove the CJ with the speaker been the referee as expected.
The state lawmakers got the two – third members which was required for the removal of the state Chief Judge, and recommended the removal of Maurice Ikpambese, ordering that the next person in the hierarchy be sworn in immediately as the CJ of Benue State. However, the governor who also received the resolution of the 10th House of Assembly members as provided in section 292(a) Ii of the 1999 constitution deferred to act on the resolution of the lawmakers. Meanwhile the National Judicial Council (NJC) decried the recommendation of the Benue lawmakers, saying it is rather the commencement of a long process requiring the investigation of the inability of the Chief Judge to discharge the functions of his office before disciplinary action or removal through the committees of the council would be carried out. Also, the Nigerian Bar Association described the purported removal of Chief Judge of Benue State as a brazen assault on the constitution.
However, there have been a clatter of legal elucidations. Barr. Moses Tsekaa, a constitutional lawyer and human activist in a chat with The Transmitter, argued that the state law makers acted within the provision of the constitution as mandated.
He stated that ” if the National Judicial Council (NJC) were the only authority to recommend removal of a chief judge, the constitution would state so clearly and remove section 292(a) (I) (Ii) expressly which gives the role to the assembly.
He maintained that the 1999 Constitution section 292 (a) (b) gives conditions for the removal of a judicial officer, that he or she shall not be removed from office or appointed before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances;
In the case of -(I) Chief Justice of Nigeria, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Chief Judge of High Court of Federal Capital Territory Abuja, Grand Khadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and President Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the President acting on an address supported by two- third majority of the Senate.
(ii) Chief judge of a state, Grand Khadi of Sharia Court of Appeal or President of a Customary Court of Appeal of a State, by the Governor acting on an address supported by two- third majority of the House of Assembly of the state, praying that he or she be removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or contravention of the code of conduct.
In any case, other than those to which paragraph (a) of this subjection applies, by the president or, as the case may be, the governor acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council that the judicial officer be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body) or for misconduct or contravention of the code of conduct.
However, this section 292(b) where the NJC’s role was first mentioned focuses on “any case ” other than those specified in section 292(a) where the Governor and President can act on resolution of the Assembly — (this means that the National Judicial Council (NJC) has also been given the role already vested in the Assembly and the Governor.
Barr. Tsekaa also explained that, even from an elementary interpretation of the above section of the 1999 constitution which is clear enough, it’s obvious that the resolution of the 10th Benue State Assembly is supported by section 292(a)i above, it is also important to highlight that the resolution of the assembly alone does not translate to action by the governor or it still remains that, the governor has not acted on the legislative resolution to the knowledge of the public yet.
He wondered whether the undated press statement by NJC is valid. “Assuming without conceding that the press statement which has no date is valid.”He maintained that “NJC has allegedly confirmed receipt of a valid petition against the CJ, in the spirit of EQUITY, can the NBA advice the Chief Judge to step aside so as to allow an investigation by the NJC? Since those who come to equity must come with clean hands …This is even conceding that the governor and the president no longer have the power given to them in section 292(a) (b).”
He went on “No wonder Femi Falana SAN, described the statement of the NBA as ” mere criticism; But criticism is not stronger than the clear provision of the law. Yes! But the circumstances of NJC involvement is clearly stipulated in 292(b), going by the above, the constitution after creating the condition upon which a president or governor can remove a certain judicial officer in 292(a) it went ahead to state that the NJC can also recommend the removal the judicial officer in addition to what is in section 292(a), by the combined interpretation of 292(a) (b) the role of the president or governor in the removal of these judicial officers is key ( whether by the resolution of Assembly or even by the recommendation of the NJC), The governor or president is the final decision maker.” He went on to cite the supreme court judgement of 2009 that has become the tool used by NJC to encourage judicial banditry.
In 2009, in Kwara state, the House of Assembly received a petition against the CJ regarding misconduct and abuse of office, this petition was delivered upon and a resolution was passed for the governor’s consideration.The Governor Bukula Saraki accepted the recommendations as submitted (the governor is yet to accept the current resolution in the case of Benue).
The ousted chief judge dissatisfied with the process went to the Federal High Court and won against the Kwara State Governor… The state governor appealed and won at the Court of appeal. It was in 2012, after 4 years that the supreme court ruled otherwise…. highlighting the role of the NJC in the discipline of a chief judge.
Surprisingly, this ruling has been interpreted by many people to mean that the powers originally conferred on the president and governors in section 292(a)(I)(ii) of the 1999 constitution as amended ceases to exist by the supreme court judgement. He said that no matter the emotion, the press conference and rebuttals and solidarity on the issue, the 10th Benue State House of Assembly acted within the ambit of the law.
On the contrary, Barr. Ameh Adakole, disagreed with the State lawmakers about their recommendations to remove the state Chief Judge, stating that due process was not followed by the State Assembly, he said after receiving the allegations levelled against the CJ by the state governor, they were supposed to invite him to come and defend himself, and also demand for the recommendation of the NJC, before going into voting. He said the process was fast, “without trial verdict was passed.”
He advised politicians to always use the proper channel in resolving issues. A public affairs analyst, Comrade Solomon Kaanan, said the constitution did not state that the lawmakers should invite the judge for hearing the allegations levelled against him neither did it say that the lawmakers should request to see the recommendation of the NJC before performing their constitutional duties.
It will be recalled that on the 18th of February, the lawmakers voted for the removal of the state Chief Judge, upon receiving the latter from the governor accusing him of misconduct and abuse of office, when the matter was thrown on the floor of the house for voting 23 members voted for the removal of the CJ while 13 voted against.
However, the 13 lawmakers later issued a press conference distancing themselves from the decision taken by the house, and in return a 3 months suspension was handed to them, stating that they violated the rules of the house having participated in the process and later denying their participation.
Interestingly as the matter unfolded it was now left for the Governor to either sack the CJ based on the recommendation of the State House of Assembly or wait for the resolution of the National Judicial Council, However, Governor Alia told Channels Tv on Wednesday 26th February 2025 “I have not endorsed the recommendation of BSHA on the removal of the CJ. With Gov. Alia’s denial of involvement in the removal of the C.J saga, the big question is what Next?
