Media
- Home
- Details
Kano – The Presiding Judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Kano Judicial division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice E. D. Isele has struck out the suit filed by Lantana Muhammed suing for herself and on behalf of unfairly exempted candidates of the 1,196 Female Teachers recruitment exercise in Kano State against the Executive Governor of Kano State and four other for lacking merit.
The court held that the claims based on Chapter IV of the Nigeria Constitution which the Applicants rely on are reinforced in provisions such as those in Section 17 under Chapter 2 which are clearly ideals and are clearly not justifiable.
The applicants commenced the suit by Originating processes filed on the 9th of January, 2019, the application was brought pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and African Charter on Human and Peoples Right for A Declaration that the last-minute mass substitution of the names of the Applicants with persons who neither took part nor passed the written or oral recruitment tests on political grounds amounts to a flagrant violation of their right to freedom from discrimination and the right to equal access to public service as enshrined in Constitution.
An Order directing the 3rd Respondent to produce before this Honourable Court the original list of candidates who took and passed the aptitude test organised by the 3rd Respondents on 3/3/2018 and 24/3/2018 respectively and to paste same at the 44 Local Government Education Authorities offices (LGEAs) as the lawfully recruited candidates in the recruitment exercise of 1,196 female teachers or other such other figure as approved by the Kano State government among others.
On the ground that the extant laws of the land as contained in the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Right demand that Nigerian citizens shall not be discriminated upon and shall be allowed strict basis, equal and equitable access to public services.
On the same 9th January 2019 the Applicants also filed a Motion Exparte sought for an order restraining the Respondents from holding out the candidates purportedly employed in the just completed recruitment process pending the verification and determination of the same Motion on Notice.
In the affidavit of urgency, the Deponent had alongside other depositions made to support their case stated that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application.
After hearing the motion ex-parte on the 7th of March, 2019, the court ordered Defendants to be put on notice.
Learned counsel to the Applicants, Abba Hikima, Esq stated that subjecting the Applicants to the rigors of the application, aptitude test, and interview, when same is not imposed on other candidates who scaled through in the mass employment exercise, is purely discriminatory.
The 4th Respondent, State Universal Basic Education Board was represented on the 21st of March, 2019, and the other Defendants were not showing up in Court.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel, the Court presided by Hon. Justice E. D. Isele expressed thus;
“Having patiently gone through the case of the Applicants, I have had to consider the weight of the prayers sought
“Having heard the arguments of the applicants, it is true that they have these rights just like every other Nigerian. But the reality is that these rights are not absolute.
“However, the reality is that not all the millions or thousands who apply for jobs are employed at the same time. There would always be those who would be employed and others who lose out.
"In this case, the Applicants have alleged unsavoury practices against the Government because all of them as Applicants felt entitled to be the ones to be employed. I must state right away that in reality, things don’t work that way.
“I find and do hold that the above provision lays out clear markers for the Court’s exercise of its powers which must be exercised judicially and judiciously. And I go on to hold that they do not go as far as granting the prayers of the Claimant which even though may be plausible are not proved before this Court.
“The claims/rights out of Chapter IV of the Constitution which the Applicants rely on are reinforced in provisions such as those in Section 17 under Chapter 2 which are clearly ideals and are clearly not justifiable.”
His Lordship struck out the suit for lacking merit.
