NJC Tackles Benue Govt over Chief Judge

The National Judicial Council recently intervened in support of the embattled Chief Judge of Benue State, Justice Maurice Ikpambese, by urging the state government to adhere to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution regarding the appointment, discipline, and removal of judicial officers, Wale Igbintade writes

Except it urgently retraces its steps, the Benue State government could be on a collision course with the National Judicial Council (NJC) over the unconstitutional removal of the state Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese.

Last Tuesday, the Benue House of Assembly recommended the suspension of Justice Ikpambese over alleged abuse of office and gross misconduct. In his place, it recommended that the most senior judge be sworn in with immediate effect.

The resolution was made after a letter from Governor Hyacinth Alia was read during the plenary by the assembly’s Majority Leader, Saater Tiseer. 

According to the letter, there are five allegations against the chief judge, including abuse of office by issuing a directive to overturn the state electoral law passed by the state lawmakers and assented to by the governor.

Other allegations are misappropriation and mismanagement of the budgetary allocation and finances of the state judiciary, engagement with politicians and political office holders for favourable judicial outcomes, and indirect participation and incitement of industrial actions against the state executive.

Tiseer stated that they received a complaint from the state Attorney-General detailing the allegations, and after exhaustive deliberation, the assembly went into a division where 23 members out of 31 present voted in support of the recommendation to remove the judge.

By Wednesday, the lawmakers slammed a three-month suspension on 13 members of the assembly for what the Speaker, Chief Hyacinth Dajoh, described as “dishonourable actions capable of casting aspersions and causing acrimony in the house”.

Tiseer condemned in the strongest terms the dishonourable actions of the member representing Makurdi South Constituency, Mr. Douglas Akya, and his 12 colleagues, whom he said addressed a press conference denying voting in favour of the motion to remove the judge after the lawmakers had voted for the removal of the chief judge.

The assembly, consequently, mandated the 13 suspended members to refund the funds paid to them for foreign trips to government coffers since they will no longer be embarking on the journey.

Earlier, the Benue State Caucus in the National Assembly condemned the removal of Ikpambese. 

While describing the action as unconstitutional and illegal, the caucus declared it null and void.

The lawmakers from the state had also called on the NJC to intervene immediately and prevent an impending constitutional crisis.  They threatened that failure to address the situation could force the National Assembly to take over the affairs of the Benue State House of Assembly as provided for in the constitution.

After the plenary, 13 members of the assembly, while addressing journalists at the residence of Hon Beckie Orpin in Makurdi, later distanced themselves from what they described as the purported resolution to remove the chief judge. They argued that since none of the requirements for the removal of the chief judge was met, they decided to distance themselves from the action as disciples of democracy and constitutionality.

Responding to the removal of Justice Ikpambese, the NJC, the highest judicial organ in the country, declared that he would remain in office until an investigation into the petition against him is carried out.

In a statement by its Deputy Director of Information, Kemi Ogedengbe, the NJC said there are clear provisions of the Constitution on the appointment and discipline of judicial officers, adding that the Benue State government and state assembly did not comply with the said provisions.

“Although the council had this morning received a petition against Hon. Justice Maurice Ikpambese, that petition is yet to be investigated in line with the council’s investigation procedure and the principles of fair hearing.

“As far as the council is concerned until the complaint is investigated and deliberated upon by it, Hon. Justice Maurice Ikpambese remains the Chief Judge of Benue State.

“This action is not only unconstitutional,” the statement continued, “it violates the principles of separation of powers and fair hearing which are necessary for the sustenance of democracy.

“The provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, clearly states a Chief Judge of a state can only be removed on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council which is responsible for disciplinary actions against judicial officers on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of members of the House of Assembly of a state praying for the removal of the state Chief Judge.”

“The attendance at today’s sitting was 31 members, the Speaker did not vote, and 13 members did not vote; therefore, it is unimaginable that in an Assembly of 32 members where 31 were in attendance and 13 members did not vote, the voting produced 23 votes,” he stressed.

The Benue State case is not the first time the court halted the arbitrariness of a state governor and the House of Assembly in removing a chief judge from office.

Since the enthronement of democracy in 1999, the NJC has consistently been telling state governors and their Houses of Assembly that they cannot appoint or remove a chief judge without its approval, but this constitutional provision has often been flouted.

Whether in Rivers, Abia, Kogi, Gombe, Cross River or Kwara State, the NJC has consistently warned state governors and their Houses of Assembly that they cannot appoint or remove a chief judge without its input.

The strongest judicial imprimatur to vindicate the NJC came from the Supreme Court in May 2009 when the then Governor of Kwara State, Dr. Bukola Saraki, sacked the state Chief Judge, Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb, from office over alleged corruption, misconduct, as well as high handedness in handling the crisis in the judiciary.

Rather than notifying the NJC, Saraki wrote a letter to the state House of Assembly, complaining about the chief judge and the need to remove her from office.

Upon receiving the governor’s letter, it took the lawmakers just 45 minutes to deliberate on the issue and gave a unanimous approval to the governor’s request.

Justice Elelu-Habeeb then went to the Federal High Court in Ilorin, which ordered that she should be reinstated. But the state government appealed the judgment and won. Consequently, Justice Elelu-Habeeb, knowing the law, approached the Supreme Court.

In 2012, the seven-man panel of justices of the apex court led by Justices Walter Onnoghen, Christopher Chukwumah-Eneh, Muhammad Muntaka-Coomassie, Olufunmilola Adekeye, Mary Peter-Odili and Olukayode Ariwoola, in a unanimous decision, declared all the actions taken by the Kwara State government and the state House of Assembly on Justice Elelu-Habeeb’s removal as a nullity.

Citing Section 271(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the apex court said: “It is not difficult to see that for the effective exercise of the powers of removal of a chief judge of a state by the governor and House of Assembly, the first port of call by the governor shall be the NJC. Although the governor of a state has been vested with the power to appoint the chief judge of his own state, that power is not absolute.”

Justice Mohammed said: “The NJC is the body that has been assigned the duty and responsibility of recommending to the governors of the states of the federation suitable persons for appointments to the offices of chief judges of the states and other judicial officers in the states. The same NJC is also empowered under subparagraph (10) of paragraph 21 to recommend to the governors of the states the removal from office of the chief judges of the states and other judicial officers of the states, and also to exercise disciplinary control over such chief judges of the states and other judicial officers of the states. 

“Therefore, from these very clear provisions of the constitution, which are very far from being ambiguous, the governors of the states and the houses of assembly of the states cannot exercise disciplinary control touching the removal of chief judges of states or other judicial officers in the states.”

From previous experiences, the beauty of the NJC’s intervention is that if the state goes ahead to swear in the most senior judge in the state as Justice Ikpambese’s replacement, the new appointee could be sacked.