Part Three: The Edo Auditor-General Controversy

Laws are easiest to respect when they are convenient. Their true test comes when they stand in the way of something government wants to do.

That is where the Edo State Audit Law appears to find itself today.

In October 2025, the Edo State Audit Service Commission issued retirement letters to the Auditor-General (State), Mr Henry O. Odiase, and the Auditor-General for Local Government, Mr Stephen O. Johnson, on the basis that they had completed 35 years in public service.

Ordinarily, that might appear straightforward.

Except that Edo State had amended its Audit Law.

What Changed?
The original 2021 Audit Law provided that the Auditor-General would remain in office until attaining 60 years of age or 35 years in service, whichever came first.

But later that year, Section 24 was expressly replaced.

The amended provision gave the Auditor-General a fixed four-year term, renewable once subject to confirmation by the House of Assembly. More importantly, it stated that an Auditor-General appointed from the Public Service would retire at the end of the fixed term.

That creates the central question:

If the Legislature intended the normal 35-year retirement rule to continue determining the Auditor-General’s tenure, why did it remove that provision and replace it with a fixed-term arrangement?

Retirement or Removal?
Government may argue that the officers were not removed; they were merely retired under public-service rules.

But that distinction may not settle the issue.

If “retirement” produces exactly the same result as removal — compelling a constitutionally protected Auditor-General to leave office before completing the tenure provided by law — then the legal effect of the action becomes important, whatever name is given to it.

The Constitution deliberately protects the office of Auditor-General because the occupant must sometimes investigate the very government that appointed him.

An Auditor-General who fears premature removal cannot truly be independent.

Edo Has Been Here Before
This issue is particularly interesting because judicial decisions have previously considered attempts to terminate the tenure of Auditors-General through ordinary retirement provisions.

The courts have emphasised the special constitutional character of the office and the importance of protecting its independence.

That history should encourage caution rather than confrontation.

This Is Bigger Than Two Men
This should not become an argument about Henry Odiase or Stephen Johnson.

Both men will eventually leave office.

The real question is what happens to the institution they leave behind.

If an Auditor-General with a fixed statutory tenure can nevertheless be retired through an ordinary administrative process, what message does that send to the next Auditor-General when an uncomfortable audit query lands on the desk?

Will he investigate fearlessly?

Or will he remember what happened to his predecessors?

Government Should Review the Decision
There is nothing dishonourable about government reviewing an administrative decision when legitimate questions arise about its legality.

The Attorney-General, Audit Service Commission and House of Assembly should examine the Constitution, the Civil Service Rules and, most importantly, the amended Section 24 of the Edo State Audit Law.

If the retirements comply with the law, government should explain why.

If they do not, they should be corrected.

This is not about PDP versus APC, Obaseki versus Okpebholo, or yesterday’s government versus today’s.

It is about something more enduring:

Can we build institutions strong enough to survive the governments that created them?

Because an independent Auditor-General is not a nuisance to good government.

He is one of its safeguards.

To be continued…
Part Four: Governments Come and Go, Institutions Must Remain.