FG requests Stay of Execution order over CERPAC fees

Published by

5 years ago

The Federal Government has filed an appeal against the ruling of Justice Rilwanu Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos on its ruling on the collection and remittance of the Combined Expatriate and Residence Permit Aliens Card (CERPAC) fees delivered on the 20th November 2019.

While appealing to the Court of Appeal for Stay of Execution of the ruling of the Federal High Court, the Ministry via a Motion of Notice filed at the Court, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling in favour of Mr Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, declaring as unconstitutional the engagement of a private firm: Continental Transfert Technique Ltd, by the Ministry to collect the fees on behalf of Nigeria Immigration Service.

Acknowledging the receipt of the appeal dated 24th January to the Court of Appeal, as acknowledged by the Principal Executive Officer, FHC, Ikoyi, Mr C. N. N Nwagwu, the Ministry said the Order for the Stay of Execution on the judgment comes into force pending its determination by the Court of Appeal.

ALSO READ: Death toll rises to 36 in Turkey earthquake

The grounds for the objection, according to the Ministry, is predicated on the appeal by the defendants challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain Falana’s originating summon, the appeal of the respondents has a strong likelihood of success at the Court of Appeal.

“The said Notice of Appeal of the 1st and 2nd Defendant/Applicant is not frivolous and contains viable grounds of Appeal,” adding that it will be in the interest of justice to grant the application for stay of execution of the judgement, among others.

In its support for the motion of Stay of Execution of judgment, therefore, the Director of Legal Services in the Ministry, Mrs B.E Jeddy-Agba, said the Ministry is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgement and inevitably had to appeal the judgment.

To buttress its argument, the Ministry cited Coker JSC, in the case of Vaswani Trading Company V. Savalakh & Company (1972) 12 SC77 at 82, adding: “It is our submission that an application for stay of execution, a fundamental principle that the Court will consider in cases declarative judgement (as in the instant case) is whether there is a reasonable probability that the judgment declarative reliefs awarded (which borders on a fixed sum) can be recovered from the respondents or expatriates if the appeal succeeds.

The Ministry advanced further to cite the case of Leaders & Co V. Adetona (2003) 14 NWLR (PT.840) 442, PARAS F-G.

However, the Ministry and its parastatal, while pointing out a particular error in the judgment refers to the Senior Advocate as an expatriate and has therefore not engaged any expatriate, he has not shown that he paid more than what an expatriate should pay as CERPAC fees and that he (Mr Femi Falana) is not a beneficiary of the Consolidated Federation Account and has no interest in the Federation Account.

The Defendant/Applicant also argued that the Judge erred, for treating the matter was treated as a Constitutional matter instead of a simple contract, adding: “Trial Judge erred when he held that the provisions of Section 31 (1) of the Immigration Act, 2015 is inconsistent with the provision of Section 59 (1) (b) of the Constitution against the provision its Act which empowers provision of Section 31 (1) of the Immigration Act which empowers NIS where it deems fit to increase the statutory fees, adding that NIS is a creation of the Act of the National Assembly.

Dr Adewole Adebayo, Counsel to the firm, further observed in a statement that: “It is a well-known fact that the CERPAC Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contract has gone through the Christopher Kolade Panel of 2000 which cancelled many contracts signed under the last Federal Military Government but approved and recommended the CERPAC agreement. The contract went before the Federal Executive Council and got approvals.”

He added that since its implementation began, the CERPAC Contract has survived dozens of Senate and House of Representatives hearing, investigations by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), arbitration in London (2008), High Court of London Judgment (2008), United States District Court, Washington DC Judgment (2010), United States Court of Appeals Washington DC Judgment (2015), all validating the CERPAC agreement.