Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos--- National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in lagos before Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on Monday 16th July 2018 in a landmark judgment declared decision of the Chairman NDLEA and National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) (1st and 2nd Defendants) to retire Prince Benjamin Saliu Ikani (applicant) in August 2010 for the sole reason that he had served as Attorney General of Kogi State between 2003 and 2005 before resuming at his duty post as a staff of the 2nd defendant Agency in 2005 as invalid, null and void and ordered defendants to restore all the appurtenances and applicable benefits of the claimant’s office and employment in the 2nd defendant within 30 days of this judgment.
This is a transferred matter from the Federal High Court. The claimant had filed this suit at the Federal High Court on 29th October 2010 vide an originating summons against four defendants. By the amended statement of facts filed on 18th July 2014, the claimant prayed for the following reliefs among others: A declaration that the decision of the 1st and 2nd defendants (as communicated in their letter to the claimant dated August 3, 2010) to retire the claimant from the Service of the 2nd defendant Agency, without providing the claimant an opportunity to be heard on the complaints or matters upon which the decision was based, is null and void and of no effect. A declaration that the decision of the 3rd defendant to rescind the earlier approval given to the 1st and 2nd defendants for the retirement of the applicant effectively overrides, overrules and nullifies the letter issued by the 1st and 2nd defendants dated August 3, 2010 purporting to retire the applicant. And An injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their servants, subordinates and agents from interfering in any way with the employment of the claimant in the service of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and or his performance of his assigned as Commander of the 2nd defendant in Yobe State of Nigeria or otherwise obstructing him from continuing in his employment as and enjoying the benefits of a staff of the 2nd defendant.
To the claimant, he was employed by into the service of the 2nd defendant at its formation in 1990 as a legal officer. In 2003, he was appointed as Attorney General (AG) and Commissioner for Justice, Kogi State That pursuant to Article 3(h) of Part 5 of the NGLEA Regulations (Terms and Conditions of Service), he applied through a letter of 31st July 2003 for leave of absence in order to take up the appointment as AG, Kogi State. By a letter of 13th August 2003, the 1st and 2nd defendants congratulated him and approved the leave of absence for the duration specified in the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment.
At the end of his service as Commissioner in 2005, he returned to the 2nd defendant in compliance with the regulations, was re-absorbed and posted to Kebbi State as State Commander. That his problems with the Agency started after he was appointed in 2006 as a Member, Secretary and head of the Secretariat of the seven man Presidential Committee for the Reform of the NDLEA headed by Hon. Justice Gilbert Obanya (Rtd) . That this Committee submitted its report in 2007 and the leadership of the 2nd defendant after considering the report accused the claimant of not protecting them.
That this led to several acts of persecution by the agency including the decision to revisit the leave of absence granted to him in 2003. That it was pursuant to this persecution that the leadership of the 2nd defendant wrote to the 3rd defendant in 2005 for approval to terminate his employment after serving as AG, Kogi State, which request for approval did not reveal that the claimant had applied and obtained leave of absence pursuant to Article 3(h) of Exhibit C5. Accordingly, that the approval, if any was given by the 3rd defendant, for the 1st and 2nd defendants to terminate the employment of the claimant must have thus been given in error. That when he learnt of the 1st defendant’s attempt to forcefully retire him, he caused his lawyer to write protesting the premature retirement. however, the 1st and 2nd defendants nevertheless retired him form service. The claimant went on that the 3rd defendant recanted and wrote to the 1st and 2nd defendants directing that they retract and withdraw from the steps taken to retire the claimant. That consequent upon this, he made attempts to resume his duties but was thwarted by the 1st defendant upon whose orders the claimant was stripped of every appurtenance and benefit of his office, hence this action.
To the 3rd defendant, when the 1st and 2nd defendants wrote to the 3rd defendant, the 3rd defendant was aware of the existence of the circulars of 4th March 1980 and 28th June 2002 by which the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) stopped the practice of career civil servants going for political appointments and returning later to the career civil service. That since the 1st and 2nd defendants did not disclose in its letter to the 3rd defendant the fact that the Conditions of Service of the 2nd defendant makes provision for officers to obtain leave of absence before proceeding on political appointments, the 3rd defendant wrote to the 1st defendant and advised both the 1st and 2nd defendants to retire the claimant as his return to the career civil service after serving as a political appointee contravened the circulars of 4th March 1980 and 28th June 2002.
The claimant went on that having earlier granted him leave of absence, the 1st and 2nd defendants ought to have informed him of any steps or petitions that tend to challenge their earlier decision to grant him leave of absence. That this failure to give the opportunity to be heard means that the decision to retire him is null and void
After reviewing the argument, processes filed and the submissions of learned Counsel for both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip expressed among others that the approval letter to terminate claimant employment after serving as Attorney General of Kogi State by the 2nd defendant writing to the 3rd defendant in 2005 for approval was not before the court.
“It is curious that the 1st and 2nd defendants who sought the advice of the 3rd defendant and the HAGF in the matter of the claimant would be unprepared to heed to their advice. The manner in which the flow of information played out calls for worry that beyond the desire to keep to the tenets of the 1999 Constitution there is nothing else that influenced the retirement of the claimant by the 1st and 2nd defendants.
“The claimant did not just wake up to take up the appointment as Commissioner; he applied and got approval from the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 3rd defendant at first saw something wrong with this but recanted later; the HAGF saw everything wrong with asking the claimant to refund moneys paid to him as remuneration. I do not see in this scenario how I can put any blame on the claimant and hold him responsible for errors of the 1st and 2nd defendants i.e. if granting leave of absence was an error, and unconstitutional.
“In consequence, I declare and order as follows:
- The decision of the 1st and 2nd defendants to retire the applicant in August 2010 for the sole reason that he had served as Attorney General of Kogi State between 2003 and 2005 before resuming at his duty post as a staff of the 2nd defendant Agency in 2005 is invalid, null and void.
- The 1st and 2nd defendants’s letter to the claimant dated August 3, 2010 purporting to retire the claimant from service is accordingly ineffective, null and void.
- The defendants by themselves, their servants, subordinates and agents are hereby restrained from interfering in any way with the employment of the claimant in the service of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or otherwise obstructing him from continuing in his employment as and enjoying the benefits of a staff of the 2nd defendant.
- The defendants are ordered to restore all the appurtenances and applicable benefits of the claimant’s office and employment in the 2nd defendant within 30 days of this judgment, where this is not already the case.
For Full Judgment, Click Here
