NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE
ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT
ABUJA
ON THURSDAY
15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA ADENIYI
SUIT NO:
NICN/ABJ/113/2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. CHRISTIANA A. GOKA…………………………... CLAIMANT
AND
1. THE INDEPENDENT CORRUPT PRACTICES
AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES
COMMISSION (ICPC)
2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE INDEPENDENT CORRUPT
PRACTICES COMMISSION (ICPC)
3. MR. HAKEEM LAWAL
DEFENDANTS
(DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
ICPC)
4. MR. S. YAHAYA
(DIVISIONAL HEAD,
INVESTIGATION, ICPC)
5. AMB. RABIU DAGARI
(DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DIRECTORATE OF
TECHNICAL COOPERATION IN AFRICA)
R U L I N G
The
Claimant is a Director with the Federal Civil Service Commission and deployed
to the Directorate of Technical Cooperation in Africa, a Directorate under the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In summary, her case is that her interdiction by
the Defendants during the pendency of a criminal charge is ultra vires, unlawful
and unconstitutional.
Being
thereby aggrieved by the action of the Defendants, the Claimant instituted
the
present action by Originating Summons filed in this Court on 17/01/2025,
whereby she prayed the Court for the
determination of the questions set out as follows:
i. WHETHER the 1st, 2nd,
3rd and 4th Defendants’ action of coercing, instigating, intimidating and
bullying the 5th Defendant to interdict the Plaintiff through their letters of
March 3, 2023 and May 3, 2023, and reiterated by 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants’ letter of May 22, 2023, purporting to derive such power from Section
6 (c) & (d) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 is
not ultra vires of their powers, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void,
under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as
amended).
ii. WHETHER
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants’ action of coercing, instigating,
intimidating and bullying the 5th Defendant to interdict the Plaintiff through
their letters of March 3, 2023 and May 3, 2023 and reiterated by 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th Defendants’ letter of May 22, 2023, does not amount to arrogating and
appropriating to themselves the exercise of judicial powers which they do not
have in breach of Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended).
iii. WHETHER
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants’ action of coercing, instigating,
intimidating and bullying the 5th Defendant to interdict the Plaintiff through
their letters of March 3, 2023 and May 3, 2023, on the basis that a Criminal Charge
in Charge No: CR/119/2022, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Mrs. Christiana Goka,
has been filed against the Plaintiff does not amount to pre-conviction sanction
and extra-judicial punishment in violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental right
to presumption of innocence under Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
2. Upon the determination of the questions set out in the foregoing,
the Claimant thereby claimed against the Defendants principal reliefs as
follows:
i. A
DECLARATION that Section 6 (c) & (d) of the Corrupt Practices and
Other Related Offences Act 2000 (under which they purportedly claimed to have
derived their powers to act in such an illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional
manner) does not confer on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants such
overreaching, wide, coercive and intimidating power to instigate, coerce,
intimidate and bully the 5th Defendant to interdict the Plaintiff.
ii. A
DECLARATION that the action of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants in
coercing, instigating, intimidating and bullying the 5th Defendant to
unilaterally and arbitrarily issue a letter of interdiction to the Plaintiff
amounts to gross improper use of or abuse of power and executive lawlessness.
iii. AN
ORDER of the Honourable Court declaring the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants’ letters of March 3, 2023 and May 3,2023 to the 5th Defendant as
illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
iv. AN
ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants through their
official channel of communication and correspondences to render public apology
to the Plaintiff.
v. AGGRAVATED DAMAGES in the sum of N500,000,000.00
(Five Hundred Million Naira) only, against the Defendants jointly and severally
for their illegal, unlawful, malicious and unconstitutional acts against the
Plaintiff.
vi. Cost of this
action.
The Originating Summons is supported by a 27 –
paragraph Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant and to which eight (8)
documents were annexed as Exhibits A – H. Also
filed alongside is written submission of her counsel.
3. To oppose the Originating Summons, the 1st - 4th Defendants’ Counter Affidavit of 11 paragraphs with six (6)
documents annexed as Exhibits ICPC 1 – ICPC 6 was filed on 03/02/2025,
whilst the Counter-Affidavit of the 5th Defendant was filed on
05/02/2025 with sixteen (16) documents annexed as Exhibits DTCA A
– DTCA N. The written submissions of the respective Defendants’ counsel
were filed alongside.
In response to the 5th Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit, the Claimant
filed a Further Affidavit of 7 paragraphs on 04/04/2025,
and filed alongside was counsel’s Reply on Points of Law. The Claimant’s Reply
on Points of Law to the 5th Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit was also
filed 04/04/2025.
4. Now, as gleaned from the facts deposed in the Affidavit in support
of the Originating Summons, the story as told by the Claimant is that she was
requested to report at the 1st Defendant office on 17/02/2022 where she was
informed that she was being investigated for a missing fund for a Management
retreat that she was appointed as the Chairman which was supposed to have been
held in Jigawa State in 2017. According to the Claimant, the retreat that was
contracted to a Consultant at a sum of N5,393,656.00 did not hold due to the
demise of the Director-General; that the Consultant was requested to refund the
money; that on the instruction of Ambassador Abdullai Suleiman (now deceased),
the money was refunded to one Mr. Ikpeme Bassey who claimed to have handed the
money to her (the Claimant).
5. It is the further deposition of the Claimant that in the course
of the investigation, she submitted a series of documents – Exhibit A;
that her statement was made in the presence of her lawyer and was subsequently
granted administrative bail. However, the Claimant contends that the manner the
polygraph test was conducted by the 1st Defendant to verify her claim that she
did not receive the money from Mr. Ikpeme Bassey violated her constitutional
rights, hence, an action was filed to enforce her Fundamental Right at the
Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/624/2023 – Goka Christiana Vs
Independent Corrupt Practice Commission & 2 Ors – Exhibit B.
6. The Claimant further deposed that about seven months after she
instituted the action for the enforcement of her Fundamental Right, the 1st
Defendant filed a Criminal Charge, Exhibit C, in Charge No:
CR/119/2022 – Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Mrs. Christian Goka, that is still
pending before the High Court of FCT, Kwali. The Claimant’s grievance is that
without waiting for the determination of the criminal case by the Court, Exhibit
D, a letter titled, Investigation Activities on 03/03/2023 was written
to her. She alleged that it was the 1st and 2nd Defendants acting through the
3rd Defendant that wrote to compel the 5th Defendant to interdict her, purportedly
acting pursuant to Section 6 (c) and (d) the Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act 2000, and that another letter dated 03/05/2023, Exhibit
E, was written about two months thereafter by the 1st and 2nd
Defendants, compelling the 5th Defendant to produce evidence of compliance with
the directives as contained in Exhibit D.
7. The Claimant also deposed that by a letter of interdiction, Exhibit
F, dated 08/05/2023, she was unlawfully and wrongly interdicted by the 5th
Defendant whom she alleged was acting on the coercion and influence of the 1st,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants; that upon receipt of Exhibit F, her counsel wrote
Exhibit G, a Notice of Intention
to Commence a Suit, to the Defendants and that in its reply in Exhibit H,
the 1st Defendant stated that the interdiction was pursuant to its powers as
contained in the 1st Defendant’s Act and Public Service Rules. The Claimant
maintained that the action of the 1st – 4th Defendants is ultra vires their
prosecutorial power and that they lack the power to take any action until the
determination of criminal action in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
8.
Now, I had also carefully examined the Counter-Affidavit filed by
the 1st - 4th Defendants in opposing the instant Originating Summons.
It
was admitted that the Claimant is a Director with the Federal Civil Service
Commission and that she is being investigated in respect of the missing fund
for a planned but aborted Management retreat in Jigawa State. It was further
stated that having being duly educated about the polygraph test, the Claimant
willingly submitted and signed the consent form, Exhibit ICPC 1, to
the conduct of the test and that her comment that the conduct of the test was
impressive is contained in Exhibit ICPC 2.
9.
The further deposition is that upon completion of the investigation and having
established a prima facie case, Exhibit ICPC 3, a charge, was filed
against the Claimant; that thereafter, a letter, Exhibit ICPC 4, was written by the 1st Defendant through the
3rd Defendant to inform the Claimant’s employer about the actions taken by the
1st Defendant and on the need to comply with the Public Service Rules; that a
letter, Exhibit ICPC 5, was written by the 1st Defendant through
the 4th Defendant to request for documents evidencing compliance and that the
1st Defendant wrote a letter dated 22/05/2023 – Exhibit ICPC 6,
to the Claimant to expatiate on the Public Service Rules and the need for 5th
Defendant to comply with the said Rules. The 1st – 4th Defendants denied that
the 5th Defendant was coerced, intimidated, bullied or influenced to interdict
the Claimant and stated that it is within the 1st Defendant’s mandate to advice
Heads of Parastatals. The 1st - 4th Defendants maintained that the actions they
took are stated in the Rules and denied that their action was ultra vires their
powers.
10.
The 5th Defendant in his Counter-Affidavit denied
the entirety of the depositions of the Claimant and stated that based on the
directive of the Board of the Directorate of Technical Cooperation in Africa
(DTCA), a Committee was set up to ascertain the reasons the retreat scheduled
in Jigawa State did not hold and it also demanded for refund of the money that
was funded for the retreat; that as directed, the sum of N5,398,650.00 less the
service fees was refunded by the Consultant to one Mr. Bassey. Attached to the
Counter-Affidavit are: The document relating to the payment – Exhibit
DTCA A, the proceeding of the Joint Meeting of DCTA Governing Board and
Ministerial Investigation Committee – Exhibit DTCA B,
the Committee Report – Exhibit DTCA C, the letter to the
Consultant – Exhibit DTCA D, the letter from the Consultant and
receipt acknowledging same – Exhibits DTCA E1and E2
11. It is further
deposed that the said Mr. Bassey claimed to have handed over the money to the
Claimant, who was the Committee Chairperson of the botched retreat; that the
Claimant denied receiving the money from Mr. Bassey but that as the Committee
Chairperson, she failed and/or neglected to investigate or verify the refund
made by the Consultant; that a letter dated 09/12/2021, Exhibit DTCA F,
was written by DTCA to the 1st Defendant to investigate both the Claimant and
Mr. Bassey for the alleged missing money and that another letter, Exhibit
DTCA G was written on 15/02/2023 to request for an update on the investigation.
12.
It was also deposed that the DTCA received a letter, Exhibit DCTA H,
dated 03/03/2023, stating that a prima facie case had been established and that
a charge had been filed against the Claimant; that upon receipt of the information,
the 1st Defendant sent a letter, Exhibit DTCA K, dated 04/05/2023,
for the Claimant’s interdiction; that in compliance with the Public Service
Rules, the Claimant was interdicted on half salary but the Claimant refused to
receive or acknowledge the letter of interdiction and when she refused to hand
over the office and the official property in her custody, another letter of
interdiction, Exhibit DTCA N was reissued to her. Also annexed as
exhibits to the Counter- Affidavit are Exhibits DTCA I 1, DTCA
I 2, DTCA J, DTCA L and DTCA M.
13.
In the address filed to support the Originating
Summons, two issues formulated for determination of the Court by the
Claimant’s counsel, Blessing Timothy, Esq., as follows:
1. Whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants’ action of coercing, instigating, intimidating and bullying the 5th Defendant
to interdict the Claimant through their letters of March 3, 2023 and May 3,
2023, and reiterated by 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants’ letter of May 22,
2023, purporting to derive such power from Section 6(c) & (d) of the Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 is not ultra vires of their
powers, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, amount to arrogation of
judicial power under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria (as amended).
2. Whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Defendants’ action of coercing and
instigating the 5th Defendant
to interdict the Plaintiff through their letters of March 3, 2023 and May 3,
2023, on the basis that a criminal charge in charge no: CR/119/2022, Federal Republic
of Nigeria Vs Mrs. Christiana Goka has been filed against the Claimant does not
amount to pre-conviction sanction and extra-judicial punishment in violation of
the Plaintiff’s Fundamental Right to presumption of innocence under section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
14.
In the opinion of O. B. Odogun, Esq., counsel for the 1st – 4th
Defendants, three issues were formulated as having arisen between parties,
namely:
a) Whether the Plaintiffs have (sic) proved
that the actions of the 1st — 4th Defendants through it letters dated the 3rd
March, 2023 and 3rd May, 2023 amount to any form of intimidation,
coercion, instigation or bullying to be entitled to the reliefs sought by the
Plaintiff?
(b) Whether by virtue of Section 6(c) and (d)
of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act 2000, the 1st Defendant
through its officers can advise agencies and parastatals on the effective
discharge of their duties?
(c) Whether in the light of the fatal
contradictions of facts in support of this case, the Claimant’s suit can be
sustained.
For the 5th
Defendant, his counsel, the sole issue as distilled for determination by A. A. Nuhu Esq., is:
“Whether in view of the relevant laws, the facts and circumstances of
this case, the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of the declarations and the
reliefs sought in this suit?”
15. In the light of the reliefs claimed
by the Claimant, the Affidavit evidence adduced by the respective parties, my
view is that, issues one and two as formulated by counsel for the 1st – 4th
Defendants adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit. As such, the
Court hereby adopts the said issues in determining this suit. In adopting the
issues, I should state that I had carefully considered and taken due benefits
of the totality of arguments canvassed in the written final submissions and
oral summations of the counsel for the Claimant as well as the respective
Defendants’ counsel. I shall make specific reference to the arguments as I deem
necessary in the course of this judgment.
16.
I shall take both issues together. For starters, I note that the Claimant’s
counsel raised an issue in her written address that in his Counter- Affidavit, the
5th Defendant did not controvert any of the Claimant’s depositions, to oppose
the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and also argued that new
set of facts was introduced in paragraph 5 of the Counter-Affidavit. Now, it is
settled law that in an action by Affidavit evidence, where a Counter-Affidavit
deposes to facts not contained in the Affidavit it is responding to, the other
party who does not agree with the new facts and seeks to dispute same, must
file a Further Affidavit denying or contradicting the said facts. This is
because any fact in an Affidavit in a case, that is not denied or contradicted
in any other affidavit in that case, stands unchallenged and undenied. See Ola
Vs University of Ilorin & Ors [2014] 15 NWLR (Pt 1431) 453.
17.
I had undertaken a careful appraisal of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the 5th
Defendant. In reaction to the said Counter-Affidavit, the Claimant filed a
Further Affidavit wherein she made depositions in response to paragraphs
15, 16, 22, 25 and 26 of the Counter-Affidavit. I am of the view that the
5th Defendant by his depositions had controverted the facts in the Claimant’s
Affidavit and that by filing a Further Affidavit, the Claimant has also denied
and/or disputed the new facts. Without further ado, the argument of Claimant’s
counsel in this regard is hereby discountenanced.
18. In her submission, counsel for the Claimant placed reliance on
the cases of Abacha Vs AG Federation [2021] 10 NWLR (Pt 1783) 129; Sanwo-Olu
Vs Awamaridi [2020] 11 NWLR (Pt 1736) 458, and restated the settled
principle of construction of statute that words in a statute should be given
their ordinary meaning when the words used are clear and unambiguous. Counsel argued
that duty to instruct, to advise and to assist should be given their ordinary
meaning; that there is nothing by any stretch of imagination that conferred on
the 1st – 4th Defendants such wide, all encompassing, all embracing, coercive,
far reaching and compelling powers to intimidate and bully the 5th Defendant
into imposing sanction on the Claimant with respect to a criminal charge
pending against the Claimant or conferred the power to perform the duty or
obligation in a manner that instigated or coerced the violation of the
Claimant’s constitutional right to presumption of innocence.
19. It is the further submission of counsel that Section 6 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 clearly conferred adjudicatory
power and power to impose sanctions with respect to a criminal charge on a
court of competent jurisdiction, and argued that the 1st - 4th Defendants having
submitted issues for determination before a court by instituting a criminal
charge against the Claimant in a Court, it would amount to barefaced arrogation
of judicial power to compel, coerce, intimidate and bully the 5th Defendant to
impose penal sanction with respect to a criminal charge already submitted to
judicial determination. The cases of Dongote Vs CSC Plateau State
[2001] 9 NWLR (Pt 717) 132; Steel Bell (Nig) Ltd Vs Govt Cross Rivers State
[1996] 3 NWLR (Pt 438) 571, were cited in support of the propositions.
20. Counsel further submitted that the clear and unambiguous provision of Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
and the authorities of IGP Vs
Ubah [2015] 11 NWLR (Pt
1471) 405; Nwaigwe Vs FRN [2009] 16 NWLR (Pt 1166) 169, simply
connote that once an accused person is charged to Court, the constitutional
presumption of innocence automatically inures in his or her favor until he or
she is found guilty and the presumption of innocence indicates that he or she
must be treated as if he never committed the offence. Counsel further argued
that as contained in Exhibit F attached to the Claimant’s Affidavit in support
of Originating Summons, the extra-judicial sanctions imposed by the 5th
Defendant at the coercion of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are so
far-reaching, punitive and malicious when the Claimant has not been found
guilty and convicted of any offence by the Court.
21. The
Claimant’s allegations of cohesion, intimidation and bullying of the 5th
Defendant by the 1st – 4th Defendants were denied by the Defendants in their
respective Counter-Affidavits. The procedure the 1st – 4th Defendant adopted in
the investigation of the alleged missing money and arraignment of the Claimant
before the High Court of FCT was stated in paragraphs 9 (e) – (i) of their Counter-Affidavit.
The allegation of the Claimant is further that through the letters dated
03/03/2023 and 03/05/2023 – Exhibits D/ Exhibit ICPC4 and Exhibit E/Exhibit
ICPC 5, the 1st – 4th Defendants caused the 5th Defendant to interdict the
Claimant.
22. Now, the elementary
law and as correctly submitted by counsel for the 1st – 4th Defendants is that
he who asserts a fact must prove the existence of that fact and the burden of
proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on
either side. See Section 131(1)
of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also
the cases of Ezudyemoih Vs Turkish Airlines Ltd [2023] LPELR 60297; Dasuki
Vs FRN & Ors [2018] LPELR 43897; Jimoh Vs Hon Minister Federal
Capital Territory & Ors [2018] LPELR 46329; Irumekhei Vs Okpara
[2023] LPELR 60387 cited by counsel.
23. The deposition in paragraph 9 (k) of the 1st – 4th Defendants’
Counter- Affidavit, is that in Exhibit ICPC 4, the 5th Defendant was
merely referred, to the provisions of the Public Service Rules and the need to
comply with the extant Regulations. The 1st – 4th Defendants denied the
Claimant’s assertion that they coerced, intimidated and bullied the 5th
Defendant to interdict the Claimant. With reference to Section 6 (c) and (d) of
the ICPC Act, counsel posited that the duty of the 1st Defendant is to “instruct, advise and
assist”, and the 1st Defendant lawfully performed its duty in the instant case.
Counsel further argued that the provisions of Section 6(c)-(d) does not in any
way conflict with the Claimant’s presumption of innocence as the Claimant was
interdicted pending the determination of the trial before a Court of competent
jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Public Service Rules.
24. Counsel for
the 1st -4th Defendants made reference to Rule 030404 now Rule 100404 of the
PSR 2021 and argued that the power to interdict a public officer as provided by
the Public Service Rule is with the Board through the Director General of the
Agency, the Directorate of Technical Cooperation in Africa (DTCA); that the
burden of proving the contrary is on the Claimant and the burden will not shift
to the Defendants until the onus placed on her is discharged. Counsel
urged the Court to hold that the failure of the Claimant to establish her case
is fatal.
25. Now, on her
allegations that her interdiction was as a result of the coercion, intimidation
and bullying of the 5th Defendant by the 1st – 4th Defendants, the Claimant had
hinged her case on the issuance of the letters dated 03/03/2023 and 03/05/2023.
Interestingly, these allegations by the Claimant were denied by the 5th
Defendant in his Counter-Affidavit. In his depositions, the 5th Defendant narrated
the actions that preceded the interdiction of the Claimant and further deposed that
Exhibit DTCA K was merely issued by the 1st Defendant to the Agency/
Directorate to direct/recommend the interdiction of the Claimant which was in
compliance with the Public Service Rules. The 5th Defendant maintained that the
Claimant’s interdiction is not malicious against the Claimant but that the
interdiction was for a smooth running of the Directorate and to allow the
Claimant to attend the criminal charge pending against her in Court and if she
is discharged at the end of the trial, her entitlements would be paid in full
as provided by the Rules. Counsel for the 5th Defendant cited Section 168 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of Hon. Mohammed Saleh & Anor Vs Garba Datti
Mohammad & Ors [2010] LPELR 4924 that there is presumption
of regularity unless and until the contrary is proven and urged the Court to so hold.
26. Now, the
relevant contents of Exhibits D/ Exhibit ICPC4; Exhibit E/Exhibit ICPC 5/
Exhibit DTCA K, written by the 1st Defendant to the 5th Defendant are
reproduced
as follows:
Exhibits
D/Exhibit ICPC4 dated 03/03/2023 and titled,
Investigation Activities -
“The Commission
received and investigated a case of disappearance of the sum of Five Million
Naira (N5,398,600.00) of DTCA meant for organizing the year 2017 Management
Retreat in Dutse, Jigawa State.
2. The Commission has concluded
investigation into the matter and has filed a charge against Mrs. Christiana
Goka.
3. ………………………………………………………………………..
4. Pursuant to Section 6 (c) and (d) of the
Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 you are advised to apply
the provisions of Section 030404 of the Public Service Rules (PSR) to interdict
the officer pending the determination of the criminal trial.”
27. Exhibit
E/Exhibit ICPC 5/Exhibit DTCA K, dated 3rd May, 2023, titled:
Investigation Activities, Letter of
Invitation -
“The Commission
is investigating a case that borders on an alleged violation of the provisions
of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 in which it has
become necessary to make recourse to your office.
2. Pursuant to Section 28 of
the said Act, you are kindly required to inform and direct the Director,
Finance and Accounts and the Head, Human Resources Management to appear before
the undersigned on Monday, 8th May, 2023 for an interview at the
Commission’s Headquarters at 1400 hours.”
28. In the determination of these issues, I had undertaken a calm
review of Section
6
(c) and (d) of
the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act (The ICPC
Act) and for proper appreciation, I have reproduced the section
as follows:
“It shall be the duty of the Commission —
(c) To instruct, advise and assist any
officer, agency or parastatals on ways by which fraud or corruption may be
eliminated or minimized by such officer, agency and parastatals;
(d) To advise heads of public bodies of any
changes in practices, systems or procedures compatible with the effective
discharge of any duties of the public bodies as the Commission thinks fit, to
reduce the likelihood or incidence of bribery, corruption, and other related
offences.”
29. It is well settled the cardinal rule of interpretation of
statutes is that, where the words of a statute are plain, clear and
unambiguous, the Court shall give effect to their literal meaning. It is only
when the literal meaning may result in ambiguity or injustice that the Court
may seek internal aid within the body of the statute itself or external aid
from statutes in pari-materia, in order to resolve the ambiguity or avoid doing
injustice. See Ogbuayinya Vs Okudo [1976] 6-9 SC 32; Abegunde Vs
Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors [2015] LPELR-24588.
The above reproduced provisions of the ICPC Act are clear and
unambiguous. By my understanding, Section 6(d) expressly grants the ICPC (the 1st Defendant)
the power to: (a) instruct (b) advise and (c) assist government bodies
and/or agencies on measures to improve integrity, reduce corruption risks, and
enhance effective service delivery. By implication, ICPC’s advisory role is statutory and Exhibits D/
Exhibit ICPC4; Exhibit E/Exhibit ICPC 5/Exhibit DTCA K, were issued in
exercise of its statutory power. In other words, the 1st – 4th Defendants acted
within their stipulated statutory powers and not ultra vires. And I so hold.
30.
Ordinarily, in labour matters, employers based on their contract of engagement
with employees can set up administrative panels to conduct inquiry into any
misconduct of a staff. This right is not an unbridled one as there is
no provision in
the Constitution that bars an employer from commencing and continuing
disciplinary proceedings against an employee while a criminal charge is pending
against the employee. It has been held in a plethora of cases that the
pendency of a criminal charge does not automatically preclude the continuation
of administrative or disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts. See Adebiyi
Vs Adebiyi & Anor [2018] LPELR 45964; Atuana Vs FRN [2023] LPELR 60570.
31. The settled position of the law from time immemorial, is that
a Court would only grant declaratory reliefs sought in an action principally on
the basis of the evidence adduced by the Claimant without recourse to the
evidence called by the Defendant. See the authorities of Dumez Nigeria
Limited Vs Nwakhoba [2009] All FWLR (Pt 461) 842; Ogolo Vs Ogolo
[2006] All FWLR (Pt 313) 1. As rightly submitted by the respective counsel
for the Defendants, the Claimant has sought declaratory reliefs and to warrant the grant of her reliefs she
must prove that (i) that 1st - 4th Defendants were not carrying out or have
failed in their statutory duties pursuant to the Constitution and relevant
laws; (ii) that the 5th Defendant
was instigated to issue the interdiction to the Claimant (iii)
that she was
wrongfully or unlawfully interdicted by the 5th Defendant.
32. My finding is
that, the Claimant failed woefully to place any evidence
whatsoever before the Court to establish her claims against the Defendants. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, I must hold
that the Claimant has failed to adduce any shred of evidence whatsoever to
sustain or substantiate her case. The judgment of the Court, in the final analysis is
that, this suit must fail. It shall be and it is hereby accordingly
dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
SINMISOLA
O. ADENIYI
(Hon.
Judge)
15/01/2026
Legal representations:
Blessing
Timothyi Esq. for
Claimant
O. B. Odogun Esq., for 1st – 4th
Defendants
A.
A. Nuhu Esq., for 5th
Defendant