Benue Lawmakers Split Over Chief Judge’s Removal, 13 Members Reject Decision
Thirteen members of the Benue State House of Assembly have distanced themselves from the purported resolution to remove the Chief Judge, Justice Maurice Ikpambese. Some lawmakers had earlier declared Ikpambese removed over alleged abuse of office and financial mismanagement.
Hon. Douglas Akya of Makurdi South Constituency, speaking at the residence of Hon. Beckie Orpin in Makurdi, said they dissociated themselves from the decision. Other lawmakers present at the briefing included Hon. William Ortyom of Agasha, Hon. Jonathan Agbidye of Katsina-Ala East, Hon. Samuel Anyor Matu of Kwande East, Hon. Pastor Onah Blessed of Oju 1, Hon. Orpin Beckie of Gboko East, Hon. Elias Terumbur Audu of Gwer East, Hon. Nyiyongo Ezra of Ukum, Hon. Abraham Zahemen Jabi of Buruku, Hon. Gabo Simon of Mata, Hon. Samuel Agada of Ogbadibo, Hon. Gyila Solomon T of Gwer West and Hon. Manger M. Manger of Tarka.
The lawmakers opposed to the removal described the action as unconstitutional and a violation of the principles of separation of powers and fair hearing. They stated: “This action is not only unconstitutional, it violates the principles of separation of powers and fair hearing which is necessary for the sustenance of democracy.”
Read also: Lagos Lawmaker Empowers 500 Widows, Distributes 1,500 JAMB Forms in Massive Outreach
According to them, the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulates that a Chief Judge can only be removed based on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and with the support of a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly. “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,” one of the lawmakers stressed.
The lawmakers further argued that since the constitutional requirements for the Chief Judge’s removal were not met, they had no choice but to reject the decision in the interest of democracy and the rule of law.
