A federal high court in Abuja Thursday ordered Nigeria’s secret police to release the publisher of SaharaReporters within 24 hours.

The court also awarded N100,000 against the prosecution for failing to comply with court orders requesting the release of Sowore and for not serving the defense counsel with necessary documents early enough.

The penalty, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu said, must be paid to the defendants before the commencement of trial. The judge consequently adjourned hearing till Friday.

“This matter cannot go on,” Justice Ojukwu said. “There is no way it can go on, and the adjournment is at your instance.”

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Division has declared the firm non-remittance of the Tamunoboma Igah contributory pension funds and personal income tax as unlawful, restrained defendant or its agent from disturbing her in exercising right over company assets in her possession until full satisfaction of the judgment sum.

The court ordered firm to pay Ms Igah two months outstanding salaries, unremitted contributory pension funds with accumulated interest and 500 thousand damages within 30 days.

Ms Igah submitted that upon the directive to tender resignation letter over alleged breach of fiduciary duty to the company which she did, she stressed that her earned monthly salary for November and December 2017, contributory pension funds and deducted personal income tax remained unpaid that the Defendant neither made requisite statutory contribution as an employer nor remitted her contribution.

The Claimant further posited that she withheld the company’s properties in her possession pending remittance of all her entitlements.

The Defendant submitted that the Claimant did not make herself available for the clearance and that the delay in payment of salary was not deliberate and further that nothing in the contract of employment entitles the Claimant to exercise a right of lien over any of its property.

The learned counsel submitted that the case falls within the ambit of a trade dispute that the court cannot assume jurisdiction in the absence of compliance with the clearance modalities.

The Defendant counterclaims amongst others for debts and loans which the Claimant denied.

However, the defendant submits that claimant failed to utilized the knowledge and skills acquired in the training sent abroad to grow the firm establishment but rather it was deployed to run a private outfit with conflicting interest to that of the defendant urged the court to grant N2 million damages for breach of agreement.

The Claimant submitted that no evidence of the breach of the Confidentiality and Non-Compete Clauses; and that she was never given the opportunity to defend the allegation before being forced to resign.

Delivery the Judgment, the trial Judge, Justice Oji assumed jurisdiction and held that the suit does not involve a trade dispute requiring the condition precedent to a cause of action set out in the Trade Disputes Act.

“There is no evidence to suggest that claimant’s salary was dependent on the success of the defendant’s other ventures. I do not accept the defendant’s argument that the payment of the salary should be dependent on the claimant fulfilling the “sign-out modalities or clearance process”.

“If the Defendant had paid the Claimant promptly as at when due, it would not have been outstanding and available to be negotiated as part of the ‘sign-out procedure, at the date of resignation. I, therefore, find and hold that failure of the defendant to pay the claimant for the afore-stated months constitute a breach of the employment contract between the parties.

The court ordered the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N503,891.64 outstanding salary for November and December 2017 and sum of N1,250,017.46 unremitted contributory pension funds with accumulated interest from the time the fund ought to have been remitted minus the sum of N38,000.00 counter-claimed.

Justice Oji also ordered the defendant to remit the sum of N605. 150.14 withheld personal income tax to the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LIRS) and N500,000.00 exemplary damage within 30 days.

The presiding Judge, Bauchi division of the National Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Kenneth Amadi has set aside the purported employment termination of Mrs Fati Alhassan from Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, ordered reinstatement and payment of salaries, allowances and other benefits from January 2017 till date within 30 days.

The court held that the procedure stated for the investigation and removal of the Alhasan was not followed as provided by the conditions of service of the University.

Mrs Fati while challenging her termination stated that the composition of the committee set up to investigate the allegations on accommodation malpractices was faulty that the defendants acted on the report of the said Investigating Panel to terminate her appointment.

Counsel to the claimant, A.Y. Musa Esq maintained that the claimant has not committed any act of gross misconduct to warrant the punishment of termination of her appointment.

Counsel to the defendants, Ahmed Accanny Esq submitted that the defendants having materially complied with the conditions of service in terminating the claimant’s appointment and no allegation of breach of right to fair hearing that the defendants have complied materially with the conditions of service before terminating her appointment on the allegations she admitted.

Delivering Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Amadi held that the Respondents did not strictly follow the procedure as prescribed by the conditions of service of the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University in removing the claimant from office.

In all, the court ordered reinstatement of Alhassan with payment of salaries, allowances and other benefits from January 2017 till date and thereafter pay her until she retires or her employment properly terminated and the sum of N100,000 cost of action within 30 days failing which it shall attract 10% interest per annum until fully liquidated.

Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, has ordered the Federal Government to recover pensions collected by former governors including Rotimi Amaechi, Babatunde Fashola, Godswill Akpabio” and others who are currently serving as ministers and members of the National Assembly.

In a judgement delivered last week, the judge directed the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN to challenge the legality of states’ pension laws permitting former governors and other ex-public officials to collect life time pensions.

The judgment by Justice Oguntoyinbo followed an application for an order of mandamus in suit number FHC/L/CS/1497/2017 brought by the non-government organization, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). SERAP filed the suit to challenge the legality of former governors currently serving as Senators or Ministers, to receive retirement benefits and at the same time receiving salaries in their new political offices.

The judgment is coming on the heels of the invalidated pension law for former governors and other ex-public officers in Zamfara State, which provided for the upkeep of ex-governors to the tune of N700 million annually. The state has produced three former governors since 1999.

Delivering judgement, Justice Oguntoyinbo said

“I have considered SERAP’s arguments that it is concerned about the attendant consequences that are manifesting on the public workers and pensioners of the states who have been refused salaries and pensions running into several months on the excuse of non-availability of state resources to pay them. SERAP has also argued that there is need to recover such public funds collected by former governors.”

“It is clear from the facts of this case that SERAP had written the Attorney General to institute appropriate legal actions to challenge the legality of States’ laws permitting former governors, who are now senators and ministers to enjoy governors’ emoluments while drawing normal salaries and allowances in their new political offices and to seek full recovery of funds from those involved.”

“SERAP has stated that since the receipt of the said letter, the Attorney General has failed, refused and/or neglected to institute appropriate legal actions to that effect. In my view, the principle of ‘demand and refusal’ has been satisfied by SERAP. I have also considered the fact that in action to protect a public right or enforce the performance of a public duty, it is the Attorney General that ought to sue.”

“Having considered all the facts presented by SERAP on the need for the suit and the Counter-Affidavit against same, I find no reason why the order of mandams should not be granted. I am of the view that SERAP’s suit has merit.”

“I resolve this issue against the Attorney General, in favour of SERAP. I hold that the Motion of Notice for Mandamus dated 6th February 2018 and filed on 7th February 2018 has merit. It is therefore granted in the terms sought.”

“In other words, the Attorney General is hereby directed to urgently institute appropriate legal actions to challenge the legality of states’ laws permitting former governors, who are now senators and ministers to enjoy governors’ emoluments while drawing normal salaries and allowances in their new political offices and to identify those involved and seek full recovery of public funds from the former governors.”

“I take judicial notice of the essence of the creation of SERAP. I believe that SERAP has the locus standi to bring this suit. More so, this is a constitutional matter. In constitutional matters, the requirement of locus standi becomes unnecessary to a great extent as it may merely impede judicial function. This issue is therefore resolved against the Attorney General, in favour of SERAP.”

“SERAP is seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Attorney General to file action to challenge States’ pension laws for former governors and recover public funds collected by them in the public interest, since the Attorney General has failed/neglected to institute such action. That is the essence of SERAP’s suit.”

“I believe the Attorney General can institute action in a Court of law to challenge States’ pension laws for former governors. I do not see any substance in the submissions of counsel to the Attorney General on this issue. I therefore resolve this issue against the Attorney General, in favour of SERAP. On the whole, I find no merit in the Attorney General’s preliminary objection. It is accordingly dismissed.

I have considered the papers filed and it is obvious that SERAP is a human rights non-governmental organization, seeking to protect the public interest. It is also clear that the reason for this suit is to compel the Attorney General to challenge the legality of states’ pension laws for former governors and to identify those who have collected pensions and also seek to full recovery of public funds.

Parties ought to be bound by the issues they formulate. They ought not to make arguments outside the issues formulated by them. The Attorney General has failed to give any reason for submitting that SERAP’s suit is incompetent.
The argument made is that the reliefs sought by SERAP in this suit cannot be granted; that the Attorney General cannot be compelled to institute actions and that the laws sought to be challenged were duly passed by the House of Assembly, and are therefore legal and ought not to be challenged. However, SERAP on its part has made contrary arguments.

The Attorney General has argued that SERAP has not shown any injury it has suffered any injury as a result of the salaries and allowances being given to former governors who are now senators. SERAP is neither civil servants nor public servants who have any issues with the said States’ pension laws for former governors. That the suit was filed to promote transparency and accountability does not confer locus standi on SERAP to maintain this action.

The Attorney General has only made argument as to why the suit should be refused on the merit. I believe the Attorney General ought to have incorporated these arguments in his response to the suit rather than incorporating same in a preliminary objection. This is fatal to this issue in this suit.”

At least 22 states starting from Lagos State have passed life pensions laws for former governors and other ex-public officials. Other states include Akwa Ibom; Edo; Delta; Kano; Gombe; Yobe; Borno; Bauchi; Abia; Imo; Bayelsa; Oyo; Osun; Kwara; Ondo; Ebonyi; Rivers; Niger; Kogi; and Katsina.