Media
- Home
- Details
Enugu – His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. J. Essien of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Enugu on Wednesday 21st November 2018 in a judgment delivered dismissed suit filed by CORPORAL AMEH GABRIEL (claimant) challenging his dismissal from the Nigeria Police Force for failure to justify his entitlement to any of the claims.
The claimant in this suit filed a fresh complaint on the 28/2/2018 after this suit was transferred to this court, claimant sought against the defendants among others; A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant from the Police Force is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. A declaration that the failure of the defendant’s to avail claimant copy(ies) of the orderly room trial written notice of the punishment imposed on him before his surprised eviction from the police barrack offend Regulation 385 of Nigeria Police Regulation and same amount to breach of claimant’s right of appeal under Section 391 of the Police Regulation and Section 36(7) of the 1999 Constitution as ammended.
Likewise, An order restoring the claimant to all the rights and privileges accruing to him by virtue of his employment as if same had not been tampered with.
In summary, the claimant was enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force on the 1st day of March, 2008 and after several postings he was posted to serve as the domestic house driver of the Comm. of Police Enugu State (1st defendant). That from November, 2013 to March, 2014, 1st defendant started nursing suspicion, an act claimant denied complicity.
Due to the suspicion, the 1st defendant transferred the claimant from his house to Awgu Division, thereafter proceeded for “Formed Police Unit” (FPU) combat training. That after the FPU training, claimant received signal to report at Abuja for Liberia F-part peace keeping interview and assessment exercise.
On the 10th of November 2014, claimant was excused out of the training ground while on parade by one Superintendent of Police (SP) Jagaba who informed claimant that 1st defendant phoned him demanding that claimant should not be deployed to Liberia but instead should return back to Enugu State Police Command.
On return to his station in Awgu Division, he was served with a police wireless message dated 11th day of November, 2014 titled “Discipline rank and file” The claimant was latter detained for 16 days at the Enugu state police command from 18th November to 3rd December 2014.
On the 25th and 26th November 2014 he was subjected to orderly room trial on an allegation of the offence of discreditable conduct and insubordination by Area Commander. Nig. Police Enugu State (2nd defendant) without being allowed a legal representation and his request to call vital witnesses.
The claimant alleged that he was not allowed to cross examine the 1st defendant who testified or allowed to call his witnesses. He also alleged that he was defaulted and tried orderly room without orderly room proceedings served on him.
The claimant state that no revelation was made to claimant of his dismissal. The claimant was later forced to vacate his residence. These in a nutshell are the facts of this suit.
The defendants denied the several allegations of facts made by the claimant. In his written deposition, defendant witness testified that at the orderly room trial, exhibits were admitted without objection by the claimant.
He testified that at the trial witnesses including the 1st defendant testified against the claimant whereby the claimant was asked to cross examine each witness after their testimony but he said he had no questions for each of them. He testified that at the end of the trial he recorded the punishment of dismissal against the claimant and he notified him of the award of the punishment of dismissal on him. He pleaded allocutus and pleaded for mercy.
That the claimant was also reminded of his right of appeal within seven days upon the receipt of the notification of punishment, that rather than appealing against the decision the claimant chose to write petition against the 1st defendant.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice I. J. Essien expressed thus;
“From the state of evidence as contained in the orderly room trial, this court is satisfied that the defendant afforded the claimant the opportunity to present his defence before the verdict of dismissal was pronounced on him.”
On the claimant assumption that the non-representation of the claimant by a legal practitioner violated the claimant rights to fair hearing.
“First I must point out that by this argument the claimant counsel wants this court to raise the standard of the orderly room trial to that of a criminal trial. If the claimant counsel position be anything to go by then the charge sheet ought to have been in respect of criminal offences known to law.
“Furthermore, even where an allegation of crime is raised in an administrative tribunal hearing, that does not vitiate the proceedings or raise the proceedings to that of a criminal trial for which like in this case the orderly room trial must lose its jurisdiction.
“All that is required in an administrative tribunal proceeding such as the orderly room trial is the observance of the rule of fair hearing which was duly so observed in the proceedings.
“I therefore do not find any conflict between S. 384(6) of the Police Act and S. 36 (6)d of the 1999 constitution
“I therefore find no justification for the claims of the claimant in these regards and they are therefore discountenanced.
“The claimant has failed to justify his entitlement to any of the claims. All the claims fail and are hereby dismissed.” Justice Essien Ruled.
