Court slates Oct 12 to deliver judgment in suit against NIA over unlawful sack

THE National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has slated October 12, 2018, however to deliver judgement in a suit filed by the sacked acting Director General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Ambassador Mohammed Duada challenging his purported dismissal and praying the court to reinstate him.

Dauda in an Originating Summons filed on his behalf by his counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN) and marked NICN/ABJ/136/2018 joined the Director General , NIA and the NIA as first and second defendants respectively.

The de, however, filed a preliminary objection challenging the suit.

At the resumed hearing yesterday, the court heard both the objections of the defendants and the substantive suit.

In the suit, Dauda is challenging his sack and prayed the court to reinstate him.

The defendants through their counsel, Wale Adesokan (SAN) had filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the suit.

Adesokan argued that the claimant did not follow the condition precedent before filing his suit, adding that the claimant did not exhaust all the internal provisions for settlement of dispute.

He equally submitted that the NIA is an organization with a Principal, which is President Muhammadu Buhari and that not joining the President in the suit rendered the suit incompetent and prayed the court to strike out the suit for lacking in merit.

ALSO READ: Court slates May 9 to deliver judgment on Wike’s suit against IGP, EFCC

Responding to the objection, counsel to Dauda, Peter Erivwode from Kanu Agabi’s chambers argued that there was not specific time fixed by the law in which internal resolutions be sought.

He added that the claimant had approached the court so as not to be caught by the three months provision in which an aggrieved civil servant has to file his case before the court.

On the submission of not joining the President, the claimant submitted that NIA is a creation of statute, and hence it can sue or be sued without joining the President.

He prayed the court to dismiss the objection and decided the substantive suit on its merit.

After listening to the objection, the court proceeded to hear the substantive suit, where-in the claimant prayed the court to determine whether the procedure adopted by the defendants in the process leading to his purported dismissal is compliance with Article 8(1) and (2) of the National Securities Agency Act (CAPS 278) 1986.


He also prayed the court to determine whether in view of the extant provisions of Article 8(1) and (2) of the National Securities Ac (CAPS 278) 1986, retired Directors of NIA are competent to sit as members in the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (SSDC) and if not, whether the failure of the Defendants to set up a competent Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee SSDC to look into the allegation levied against him constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing?

In addition, he asked the court to determine whether the purported ‎letter dismissing him issued by the defendants on March 6, 2018, is not unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

He however prayed the court that the in the circumstance of affirmative answers to his questions, whether he is not entitled to reinstated as Director of NIA.

He, therefore, prayed the court for a declaration that the procedure adopted by the defendants in the process leading to his dismissal falls short of the provisions of Articles 8(1) and (2) of the National Securities Agency Act (Cap 278 LFN) 1986 and is null and void.

He also prayed the court for a declaration that by the virtue of the provisions of Articles 8(1) and (2) of the National Securities Agency Act (Cap 278 LFN) 1986, retired Directors and former members of the NIA are not competent to sit as members in the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee.

The claimant further asked the court to declare that the failure of the defendants to set up a competent Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee to look into the allegations levied against him is a violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing.

Also, he prayed the court to declare that the purported letter of his dismissal issued by the defendants on March 6, 2018 is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

He, therefore, prayed for an order of court reinstating him as a Director and the Acting Director General of the NIA.

He also prayed the court for an order for the payment of his salaries and entitlements from the period of his unlawful dismissal to the point of his reinstatement.

After listening to all parties, the trial judge, Justice Olufunke Yemi Anuwee adjourned till October 12 for judgement.


You might also like
Comments

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More