Removal Of Benue CJ: Assembly Insists It Acted In Accordance With The Law – Majority Leader, Tiseer

….Says Suspended Members Must Apologize To The House

MAKURDI – The last may not have been heard of the ongoing imbroglio over the removal of the Chief Judge (CJ) of Benue State, Justice Maurice Ikpambese, as the State Assembly has insisted that in calling for the removal of Justice Ikpambese, the House acted within the confines of the law.

The Assembly also observed that the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) was hasty in taking a position, such that without citing the resolution of the House or seeking clarification in order to get the true picture of what transpired, it pitched tent with the Chief Judge.

Majority Leader, Benue State House of Assembly (BNHA), Saater Tiseer, who made this known while addressing the media in Makurdi on Thursday, on the ongoing issues surrounding the removal of the CJ, said its action were based on Section 292(1)(a)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution.

He also noted that it was the resolution of the Benue State Assembly that the 13 lawmakers that were suspended must apologize to the House before they are accepted back into the fold of the assembly.

Tiseer argued that the BNHA did not recommend the removal of Justice Ikpambese as a Judge, but that the removal that was sought relates to his office as Chief Judge of Benue state.

He insisted that the constitution was very clear on the matter and that the BNHA acted within the confines of the law, in the interest of Benue state which is the primary constituency of the lawmakers.

The Majority Leader was emphatic that “The House did not recommend the removal of my lord (Justice Ikpambese) as a judicial officer but as the Chief Judge of Benue state in line with the above provision.

“The House further referred the Petition to the NJC to determine whether or not the Hon. Justice Maurice Ikpambese was culpable of the allegations against him and to take appropriate action in respect of his position as a Judicial Officer. This is in line with section 292 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution which provides thus:

“(b) in any case, other than those to which paragraph (a) of this subsection 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 of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.”

Responding on the issues raised by the NBA, Tiseer, noted that “It is most appalling that the duo of Afam Osigwe SAN and Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara did not take into account the above clear provisions of the Constitution into consideration before issuing its poorly researched and most erroneous press statement castigating the House of Assembly.

“It is imperative to point out that the constitution is clear and unambiguous and the BSHA acted within the confines of the law and in the interest of Benue state which is their primary constituency.

“It is further imperative to point out that the BSHA did not recommend the removal of my lord, Maurice Ikpambese as a Judge (i.e. Judicial officer) that issue will be referred to the NJC as stated in the resolution. The BSHA simply acted in line with section 292(1) (a)(ii) of the 1999 Constitution which relates strictly to the office of the Chief Judge of the state.

“The duo in their haste and excitement to be seen as championing the rule of law rushed to issue a statement on the actions of the BNHA, without even sighting the resolution of the House or speaking to any member of the House of Assembly in order to get the full and accurate picture of what transpired in the House.

“It is shocking that an association like the NBA made up of lawyers who understands what the doctrine of “audi alteram partem” is, will rush to press and call the resolution of a House of Assembly made up of 32 elected members ‘laughable’ based only on social media report.

“In that haste, the duo committed the fundamental error of basing its condemnation on a completely non-existent issue and predicted its press release on a very faulty premise relying on sections 153 and 271 of the 1999 Constitution which deals with discipline and removal of judicial officers generally and establishment of the National Judicial Council (NJC),” Tiseer said.