Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice Yakubu Hassan of the Ibadan Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed in its entirety the case filed by one ASP Adio against the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police over alleged unlawful dismissal from service.
Justice Hassan held that there is nothing placed before the Court by ASP Adio to use in determining whether his dismissal has basis in law.
From facts, the claimant- ASP Adio had submitted that while on duty, he was instructed by his Unit Commander to lead other Police Officers with three(3) suspected stolen vehicles alongside the apprehended suspects to Federal SARS.
ASP Adio averred that while on their way some personnel of the Nigeria Army accosted the vehicles on stop and search probably on tips or information supplied by the cohorts of the suspected criminals to perpetrate the escape of the suspected criminals and the authority to carry the suspected stolen trucks and that the suspects to Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was presented to the Army Personnel and all attempts to explain the mission of the movement to men of the Nigeria Army fell on deaf ears.
ASP Adio averred that to his greatest surprise and other Officers in the team, he got to know later in the hospital that the Army personnel saw ammunition being hidden under the vehicles, and further that men of the Nigeria Army beat him and other officers mercilessly and that it took divine intervention before he could escape on that very day.
ASP Adio stated that he was served with a query to which he responded and that he did not hear anything from the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police until he was summoned to appear before a disciplinary Panel and all efforts to explain that he acted and carried out lawful orders signed by a Superior Officer were rebuffed and unattended to.
In addition, the claimant- ASP Adio stated that after facing the panel, he was unlawfully dismissed without any justification as he only carried out a lawful order.
However, the defendants- the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police despite being served with the court's processes and several hearing notices, neither entered appearance nor filed any defence to the suit.
In addition, the counsel to ASP Adio contended that the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police never allowed his client to narrate his story and defend himself notwithstanding the constitutional provision which guaranteed a fair hearing and later dismissed without justification.
Again, counsel argued that ASP Adio had spent 34 (thirty-four) years with the Police Service Commission right from his youth and was not employable by any potential employer now, and he has nothing to start with, and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought in the interest of justice.
Delivering judgment, the Presiding Judge, Justice Yakubu Hassan reiterated that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully dismissed, he bears the onus to place the terms of his contract of employment before the Court and he must prove the manner the employer breached the terms.
The Court reasoned that from the totality of evidence before the Court, ASP Adio failed to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police when he was dismissed from the service.
The Court ruled that ASP Adio did not tender or present before the Court any public service rules which usually contained the terms and conditions of service and disciplinary procedure, since ASP Adio's employment is an employment with statutory flavor.
“In conclusion, it is my considered opinion based on the foregoing that the Claimant has failed to adduce credible evidence in proof of his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought. On that note and without further ado, I resolve the issue for determination against the Claimant and hold very strongly that the case of the Claimant has failed in its entirety for the reason stated herein. Consequently, I hereby dismissed the Claimant’s case in its entirety.” The Court ruled
Visit the judgment portal for full details
