When an executive arm suspends a key officer of the legislature without constitutional authority, it does not merely commit an administrative error, it strikes at the very heart of democratic governance. What happened in Abia State on May 20, 2026, demands the urgent attention of every Nigerian who believes in the rule of law.
The Abia State Government crossed a dangerous constitutional line when it issued a letter signed by the State Head of Service, Mr. Benson Ojeikere suspending Mr. John Pedro Irokansi, the Clerk of the Abia State House of Assembly, and simultaneously appointing Mr. Promise Onwukwe as Acting Clerk. This singular act, carried out without any disclosed allegation of specificity and without reference to the appropriate constitutional body, is not merely irregular, it is unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and a brazen assault on the doctrine of separation of powers.
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) is unambiguous. It is a document built on the foundational principle that the three arms of government, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary shall stand independent of one another, each operating within its lane without infringement upon the other. The Governor’s office and its agents, including the Head of Service, have no constitutional authority whatsoever over the legislative arm’s principal officer.
What the Constitution Actually Says
Section 93 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is clear: “There shall be a Clerk to a House of Assembly and such other staff as may be prescribed by a Law of the House of Assembly, and the method of appointment of the Clerk and other staff of the House of Assembly shall be as prescribed by that Law.”
Read that carefully. The appointment and by logical and legal extension, the suspension or removal of the Clerk of a State House of Assembly is to be prescribed by a Law of the House of Assembly itself, not by any letter from the State Head of Service, who is an officer of the executive arm of government.
The Abia State House of Assembly, like its counterpart at the federal level and in other states, is expected to have a House of Assembly Service Commission the constitutionally appropriate body empowered to handle the appointment, discipline, promotion, and removal of its staff, including the Clerk. Any action taken outside this framework is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution, as firmly established by Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which states: “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
The Separation of Powers: More Than a Theory
The doctrine of separation of powers is not an abstract legal philosophy. It is the living architecture of Nigeria’s democratic republic. Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution vests legislative powers in the legislature. Section 5 vests executive powers in the Governor. These powers are deliberately separated so that no single arm of government can dominate or intimidate the other.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently reinforced this position. In the landmark case of A.-G. Abia State v. A.-G. Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265, the apex court reaffirmed that each arm of government must operate within its constitutional sphere and that any overreach by one arm constitutes a violation of the constitutional order. The court drew extensively from the principle articulated in the American case of Kilburn v. Thompson, which held that those entrusted with power in one branch of government are limited to the power granted by the constitution.
What the Abia State executive has done is precisely what the Constitution forbids: it has reached across the constitutional divide and inserted its hand into the internal administration of the legislature. By so doing, the executive arm has not only acted ultra vires beyond its legal powers but has also set a dangerous precedent that could render the Abia State House of Assembly a puppet institution, unable to independently conduct its constitutional functions without the looming shadow of executive interference.
The Fair Hearing Imperative
Even if one were to assume generously and incorrectly that the executive had some marginal authority to initiate proceedings against the Clerk, the manner of this suspension is fatally flawed on yet another constitutional ground: the right to fair hearing.
Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law.”
Mr. Irokansi, a career civil servant of 16 years’ distinguished service across three administrations, was suspended through an administrative letter that did not disclose the specific nature of the alleged misconduct. He was given no opportunity to be heard, no formal charge, no panel before the appropriate body. This is not discipline, it is ambush. It violates the foundational principle of audi alteram partem: hear the other side. Courts across Nigeria have consistently struck down disciplinary actions that fail to observe this sacred principle.
The Head of Service Has No Jurisdiction Here
There is a further critical point that must be stated plainly: the Head of Service of Abia State has no jurisdiction over the Clerk of the Abia State House of Assembly.
The Head of Service is the chief administrative officer of the executive arm’s civil service. The Clerk of the House of Assembly is an officer of the legislative arm. These are two distinct and separate public services. The Clerk of the House does not answer to the Governor, the Head of Service, or any commissioner. The applicable law governing the Clerk’s service is that made by the House of Assembly, administered through the House of Assembly Service Commission.
For the Head of Service to sign a letter purporting to suspend the Clerk is the administrative equivalent of a state governor attempting to sack a federal judge jurisdictionally impossible and constitutionally void.
A Pattern Nigeria Cannot Afford
This development in Abia State must be seen within a wider national context. The subordination of state legislatures to executive whims has been a recurring democratic malaise in Nigeria since the return of civilian rule in 1999. Across the country, state Houses of Assembly have been systematically weakened their speakers manipulated, their members induced with patronage, and their administrative officers controlled by governors reducing them to mere rubber-stamp chambers.
Abia State had begun to draw attention for its governance reforms under Governor Alex Otti. That is precisely why this action is so deeply troubling. If an administration that positions itself as reform-minded can so casually override the constitutional independence of its legislature through an administrative letter, then the promise of institutional reform rings hollow.
The lesson of history is clear: whenever the executive arm successfully brings the legislature under its administrative thumb, the consequences for the citizens are dire. Budgetary oversight collapses. Accountability disappears. The last institutional check on executive excess is extinguished.
What Must Happen Now
The Abia State House of Assembly must rise to the moment. If the legislature does not defend the constitutional status of its own principal officer, it signals to the executive and to the public that it is incapable of defending the constitutional rights of the citizens it represents.
Specifically:
1. The Abia State House of Assembly must pass a resolution rejecting the suspension of Mr. Irokansi as unconstitutional and of no legal effect, and direct his immediate reinstatement.
2. If it does not already have one, the House must urgently enact a House of Assembly Service Commission Law in accordance with Section 93 of the 1999 Constitution, to permanently insulate the legislature’s staff from executive interference.
3. Mr. John Pedro Irokansi has every right to seek redress in court. The courts of Abia State and, if necessary, the federal courts, are empowered to declare the suspension null and void and award appropriate remedies.
4. Civil society organisations, the Nigerian Bar Association (Umuahia branch), and media organisations must speak with one voice in condemning this executive overreach.
5. The National Human Rights Commission should take note of the violation of Mr. Irokansi’s right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution.
Conclusion: The Constitution Is Not Optional
Nigeria’s democracy is only as strong as the institutions that uphold it. When a government treats the Constitution as an inconvenience to be bypassed by administrative correspondence, it does not merely wrong one civil servant, it wrongs every citizen whose rights and interests that servant’s institution was designed to protect.
Mr. John Pedro Irokansi served the Abia State House of Assembly for approximately 16 years, spanning three different administrations. He deserves, at the very minimum, to be treated according to the law. What he received instead was a letter unsigned by any legislative authority, issued by an executive officer with no jurisdiction over him effectively stripping him of his position without charge, without hearing, and without constitutional basis.
This is not governance. This is overreach. And in a democracy, overreach must be resisted.
The Abia State Government must reverse this action immediately, restore Mr. Irokansi to his constitutionally protected position, and allow the appropriate legislative body to handle any legitimate disciplinary matter, if one truly exists according to the law.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria demands no less.
Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The National Concord Blog Newsletter for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content. Don't miss a headline – join now below!
