His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri Judicial division on Wednesday 11^th April 2018 in a ruling directed parties to file their pleadings setting out in clear terms the reliefs sought as well as the documents and witnesses to be relied on in compliance with the rules of this Court in the case of HOPE BEALEEMABARI ALAGARA CLAIMANT AND THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE & 4 ORS challenging her dismissal from service.

This suit originally commenced by the way of an originating summon filed on the 30th of June 2017 seeking interpretations to the following questions inter alia:

1. Whether by the correct interpretation of any provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended 2011; or any provision of the Public Service Rules 2009, or of any provision of the service regulation of the State Security Service, 1981, declining to sing or recite the National Anthem amounts to any misconduct punishable with suspension and or dismissal.

Upon the determination of the above questions the Claimant seeks among others for the following reliefs against the Defendants jointly and or severally inter alia:

1. A declaration that the purported suspension and dismissal of the Claimant allegedly for disobedience to lawful order, discreditable conduct and insubordination merely because when the Claimant was still on her maternity leave, and she was called to the office, only to be asked to sing the National Anthem, she declined, stating that she respects the National Anthem by standing up when it is being sung or recited in her presence, but by her religious beliefs  as a Jehovah’s witness,  she does not sing the National Anthem, is frivolous, vexatious, malicious, witch - hunting, undeserving and grossly an unlawful suspension/dismissal.
2. A declaration that the purported effective date of the notice of dismissal of the Claimant which is dated the 28th of February 2017, instead of the 2nd of June 2017, on which day the purported notice of dismissal was served on the Claimant, is contrary to, and flagrantly violates section 3 subsection 030408 of the public service rules 2009, one of the rules regulating the Claimant’s employment, and therefore unlawful.

3. A declaration that the non payment of the Claimant’s salary from the month of April 2017 when she was purportedly suspended for declining to sing the National Anthem until date, is bereft of legal justification and therefore unlawful.

4. An order of this honorable Court directing the Defendants to recall/reinstate the Claimant as a member of staff of the State Security Service and to put her in the current position/rank of her service mates in the service, with effect from the date of judgment of this suit.

5. Whether by the correct interpretation of any of the provisions (especially sections 24 and 38) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended 2011; Or any provision of the public service rules, 2009; or any provision of the service regulation of the State Security Service 1981; or any provision of any law for the time being in force; or of any content of the Claimant’s Appointment letter, it is a mandatory requirement for a member of staff of the State Security Service to sing or recite the National Anthem, not withstanding whether or not doing so is against the person’s personal religious belief.

The Defendants through their counsel C. S. EZE, ESQ. WITH I. AGU, ESQ entered a conditional appearance on the 12^th of July, 2017 and filed a notice of preliminary objection, a 36 paragraph joint Defendants’ counter affidavit against the originating summons.

In taking further advantage of his opportunity to be heard, the Claimant decided to file on the 5^th of October, 2017 yet another counter affidavit in opposition to the further preliminary objection.

The presiding Judge, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima after reviewing the arguments and submissions of parties expressed thus;

“I have perused, examined and considered the arguments put up by either side. As far as can be deduced from the available affidavits before me, the second objection too is indeterminable. It requires the presentation of facts in order to ascertain it. It is important to note that this matter has been characterized by fierce opposition and it is trite that where facts are in dispute or riotously so, an originating summons procedure will not avail a plaintiff and he must come by way of writ of summons.”

Furthermore, While it is true this matter was essentially set down for final judgement, in order to so do, this Court must take account of the evidence of certain witnesses and key actors in this cause particularly with the facts presented by the Defendants which materially contradict the facts relied upon by the Claimant. Like I had stated in the earlier portions of this here ruling, there are substantial conflicts that need to be resolved by oral evidence. I acknowledge that the calling of witnesses to resolve these conflicts in the affidavits would be one of such ways – even though it is not sought by any of the Counsel here; but significantly, it will be in the best interest of justice to direct the filing of pleadings and thus converting this cause to a Complaint. It is safer so to do and I shall not risk whatever judgement given upon determination of this originating summons to be referred to by any of the Counsel here as "vague, inconclusive and left salient aspects of it to guesswork, conjecture and speculation".

Accordingly, I hereby direct either side to file their pleadings setting out in clear terms the reliefs sought as well as the documents and witnesses to be relied on in compliance with the rules of this Court as stated above. The Claimant is given 14 days to so comply while the Defendants have another 14 days to respond by filing their defense should it please them. The Claimant is given a further 7 days to reply if necessary. In the meantime, any preliminary objections may be incorporated in the defense and marshaled out in the final written addresses. The matter shall be determined expeditiously commencing from the next adjourned date.

For Full Ruling, Click Here…