Edo Assembly And The Dangerous Abuse Of Legislative Power ~ Osaretin Eribo

The unfolding events in the Edo State House of Assembly  led by Yekini Oisayemoje Idaiye, raise serious questions about legislative procedure, constitutionalism, and the quality of advice guiding the institution.

The apparent attempt to treat a former Speaker’s resignation (Blessing Agbebaku)as an impeachment is difficult to understand. If the former Speaker formally tendered his resignation and that resignation was accepted on the floor of the House, how can the same resignation subsequently be described or converted into an impeachment?

This is not merely a political disagreement. It goes to the heart of the rule of law and the integrity of legislative institutions.

A resignation and an impeachment are fundamentally different processes. A resignation is a voluntary decision by an officeholder to relinquish an office, while impeachment is a constitutional process initiated and carried out through prescribed legislative procedures of removal.

The question that members of the Eighth Edo State House of Assembly ought to answer is straightforward, If the former Speaker resigned and the House accepted that resignation, what legal or constitutional provision now empowers the House to retrospectively convert that resignation into an impeachment?

The legislature is supposed to be a guardian of constitutional democracy. It should not be an institution where procedures are interpreted according to convenience, political interests, or the prevailing mood of the moment.

More troubling is the precedent such an action could create. If a resignation that has already been formally tendered and accepted can later be transformed into an impeachment, what assurance does any public officer have that a properly completed constitutional process will remain valid?

Today, it may concern the office of Speaker. Tomorrow, the same questionable precedent could be applied to another officeholder. Institutions are not strengthened by bending rules to achieve immediate political objectives; they are strengthened when those who occupy them respect the rules even when doing so is inconvenient.

The members of the Edo State House of Assembly must therefore understand that their actions are bigger than the individuals currently occupying those seats. They are creating precedents that could outlive their tenure.

This is why the public deserves clarity.

What exactly happened on the floor of the House when the resignation was presented? Was it accepted? If it was accepted, under what constitutional or legal authority is it now being treated as an impeachment? Was a proper impeachment process initiated before the resignation, or is the Assembly attempting to give a different legal character to an event that had already occurred?

These are legitimate questions that should not be dismissed as political criticism.

The legislature must be guided by law, not expediency. The Constitution must remain the supreme reference point, and the rules of the House must not become instruments that are interpreted differently depending on who is involved.

There is an urgent need to protect the rule of law from actions that could undermine public confidence in the Edo State House of Assembly. Legislative power comes with responsibility, and that responsibility demands competence, restraint, transparency, and respect for due process.

The people of Edo State deserve a House of Assembly that understands the difference between political interest and constitutional procedure.

They deserve legislators who will ask the difficult questions, seek sound legal advice, and refuse to participate in actions capable of creating dangerous precedents.

At the very least, the Assembly should publicly explain the legal basis for its position.

The Edo State House of Assembly must remember that history will not judge it merely by the number of resolutions it passed, but also by whether it protected the institution of democracy and respected the rule of law when it mattered most.

(c) Osaretin Eribo