Download PDF
JUDGMENT By a Complaint filed on 28th June 2016, the Claimant instituted this action against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs against them: 1. A Declaration that having regards to the Claimant’s terms and conditions of service, the Police Service Commission Act and the Civil Service Rules applicable to the Claimant’s employment, the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, purportedly acting on behalf of the 2nd Defendant, has no power to direct the Claimant to make representations to him and or direct the 1st Defendant to place the Claimant on suspension. 2. A Declaration that the Claimant cannot be suffered or vexed twice in respect of the same issue and facts for which he was previously suspended for about two years, investigated, charged to court, tried and discharged. 3. An Order of court setting aside the directive of the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution purportedly given on behalf of the 1st Defendant as are contained in the letters of 20th June 2016 with Ref. No. HAGF/PSC/2016/VOL.1/1 and 23rd June 2016 with Ref. No. HAGD/PSC/2016/VOL/1/2 respectively. 4. A Declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants cannot validly take any disciplinary measures against the Claimant on account of the affairs, management and control of the Police Service Commission Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd or anything connected therewith being matters outside the scope of the Claimant’s employment duties. 5. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants from further suspending, interrupting, interfering or in any other manner whatsoever from taking any further punitive or disciplinary measure against the Claimant on account of any matter covered by the previous arrest, prosecution, charges, trial and discharge for which the Claimant was suspended and recalled after two years upon the advice of the 2nd Defendant. The facts of the Claimant’s case, as pleaded by him in the statement of facts and narrated in his evidence, are that he is the Director of Finance and Administration and the Acting Secretary of the 1st Defendant. He is also the President of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd having been elected to that position in 2011 along with some other elected executive officers of the cooperative. The Claimant and the executive members of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd conceived the idea of assisting members acquire land and own their individual homes through subscription. In furtherance of this idea, the cooperative acquired a large expanse of land along Airport Road, F.C.T Abuja for the Mass Housing Scheme. In the middle of 2012, the Chairman of the 1st Defendant, Mr. Parry Osayande, began prying into the affairs of the cooperative and directed that the affairs of the cooperative be surrendered to the 1st Defendant so that it can be managed by the 1st Defendant. The Claimant and his executive members resisted the directive because the cooperative is a different entity from the 1st Defendant and it was not registered under the Police Service Commission Act. The resistance of the Claimant and his executive members did not go down well with Mr. Osayande who petitioned to the Inspector General of Police. The Claimant and his executive members were arrested, detained and later charged to Magistrate Court. There were two FIRs filed against the Claimant in two separate courts but one of them was withdrawn and a charge was preferred against the Claimant and the executive members of the cooperative. The persecution of the Claimant made him cry out to the Attorney General of the Federation, that is the 2nd Defendant, and the Senate Committee on Police Affairs. Following his petition to the 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant took over prosecution of the criminal case in the High Court and when the 2nd Defendant observed that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute the case, the 2nd Defendant accordingly discontinued the case and the claimant and his co-accused were discharged by the High Court. The DPP subsequently wrote to the 1st Defendant to inform it of the developments and also advised that the Claimant and other executive officers of the cooperative be recalled and arrears of their salaries paid. Following this letter, the 1st Defendant recalled the Claimant and paid him arrears of salary. The Claimant and the executive officers of the Cooperative have other civil cases pending in court against the 1st Defendant and Mr. Parry Osayande. When Mr. Osanyande retired from service of the 1st Defendant, the new Chairman took steps to settle the disputes which pitched the staff against the 1st Defendant. As a result, all suits were withdrawn from court. Since the Claimant’s recall in 2014, he has discharged his duties diligently and he was subsequently elevated to the position of Director of Finance and Administration. Upon the retirement of the Secretary of the 1st Defendant, the Claimant was also appointed Acting Secretary pending the appointment of a substantive Secretary. The Claimant’s elevation did not go down well with few staff of the 1st Defendant and they feel his removal from office will brighten their own elevation. These staff resorted to writing petitions against the Claimant based on the events of 2012 for which he has been investigated, prosecuted and discharged. One Mathias Okoi-Uyouyo, a Chief Administrative Officer with the 1st Defendant, has petitioned him to the EFCC, ICPC and Inspector-General of Police over the same matter. The said Mathias Okoi-Uyouyo has also sent a petition to the 2nd Defendant on the basis of which the Special Assistant to the President on prosecution directed the 1st Defendant to suspend him from duties. The matters on which the 1st Defendant was directed to suspend the Claimant from duties did not arise from his employment. The matter arose from the management of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd which is a separate entity from the 1st Defendant. The Claimant has responded to all fresh invitations by the Police, EFCC and ICPC by furnishing them with details of previous prosecution. The Defendants were served with the originating processes but they did not enter appearance nor did they file any process in defending this matter. They were also served hearing notices in the course of the proceedings but they did not appear, neither were they represented in the matter. Hearing commenced on the 24th of October 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 and tendered Exhibits C1 to C17. On 29th November 2017, this court was constrained to foreclose the Defendants from defending this suit, and ordered filing of Final Written addresses. The Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed vide a Motion for extension of time on the 29th day of January 2018 and served on the Defendants. This was duly regularized on the 19th day of February 2018, on which day, the Defendants were given 21 days to file their Final address. This they did not. On the return date being 25th April 2018, the Defendants had failed to file their Final Written Addresses. The court then granted leave to the Claimant’s counsel to proceed to adopt the Claimant’s Final Written Address. Same was duly adopted on 25th April 2018. As it is, the Claimant’s action has not been defended by the Defendants. In the Claimant’s final written address filed on the 28th of June 2016, the Claimant’s counsel formulated 3 issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether having regard to the Civil Service Rules, the Claimant can be subjected to disciplinary procedure in respect of matters not related to or connected with the performance and discharge of his official duties. 2. Whether the Claimant can be punished or be subjected to disciplinary measures on the same issue for which he had been previously subjected to disciplinary measures, investigated, tried, discharged and recalled. 3. Whether the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, a political appointee can initiate disciplinary measures in the 1st Defendant having regard to the Act that established the 1st Defendant. On Issue 1, learned counsel for the Claimant referred to Order 030101-030208 of the Civil Service Rules which provides for disciplinary measures against staffs for acts of misconduct provided for in Section 3, Order 03030, and done in the discharge of official duty. The Claimant in his Witness Statement on Oath gave evidence to the fact that his portfolio in the 1st Defendant is that of Director Finance and Administration as well as Acting Secretary of the 1st Defendant. According to counsel, the schedule of duty of the Claimant with respect to the Claimant's portfolio is distinct and in no way related to the facts that led to Exhibit C16. Counsel submitted that the Police Service Commission, Staff Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society Ltd is a registered entity, with its own identity, function, rules/laws as well as mode of operation and governing body. They are therefore completely unrelated in structure, ownership and function, and thus, separate from the 1st Defendant’s identity as an establishment of Government. The Cooperative Society therefore has a right and the powers to make decisions embark on projects and programmes which it feels will better the lives of its members without interference or approval from the 1st Defendant, as the law establishing the Co-operative Society and/or the 1st Defendant does not require it to do so. Counsel submitted that The Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act, 2001 made no mention of the Commission (1st Defendant) overseeing the activities of the Cooperative Society neither did the Act vest in the 1st Defendant, powers to discipline, investigate or query members and executives of the Cooperative including the Claimant, for decisions taken or activities done on behalf of the Cooperative. It was therefore wrong for the 1st Defendant to interfere with the running of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd as well as issue a query to the Claimant for decisions taken/activities done by the Police Service Commission Staff Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd through its executive under the Claimant’s watch as its President. It was also submitted that it is only the Registrar of Cooperatives that is vested with the powers to discipline the Claimant and the executives, as the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd is duly registered under the Cooperative Society Act with the Registrar of Cooperatives at the helm of Affairs. It was further submitted that the actions of the Cooperative Society carried out by the executive members of the Cooperative on behalf of the Cooperative under the Claimant's leadership as President has not been pronounced upon, ruled or termed a misconduct or illegality by any court of law, as the Claimant and the executives of the Cooperative were never found guilty of any offence so as to give the 1st Defendant the authority to interfere, discipline the Claimant and issue Exhibit C16. On this point, counsel referred the court to Exhibits C2, C5 and C8, and urged the court to resolve Issue One in favour of the Claimant. On Issue 2, counsel submitted that the law is trite that the Claimant cannot be subjected to trial on two separate occasions for the same offence as this will amount to double jeopardy which the law frowns at greatly. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant testified as to how he was suspended, detained and discharged based on the alleged offences contained Exhibit C1. The Claimant further that upon being prosecuted at the Chief Magistrates Court, a no case submission was raised by his lawyers and same was up held by the Magistrate who in his Ruling as shown in Exhibit C2, discharged Claimant and frowned at the conduct of the prosecution. The Claimant also testified that he was also charged to the High Court of FCT in Charge No CR/102/13 (Exhibit C4); and upon the taking over of the prosecution by the 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant, after a careful perusal of the case file, submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation, this led to the striking out of the charge and the discharge of the Claimant. See Exhibit C5. It is the submission of the Claimant that Exhibit C9-C10 and C16 emanates from the same subject matter (the mass housing program of the Federal Capital Territory Administration) and it is also based on the same facts for which the Claimant and other executive members of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd were suspended, investigated, detained, persecuted, harassed and thereafter discharged. They were recalled back to office, paid all arrears of salaries/allowances and even promoted. Allowing the 1st and 2nd Defendants or any other Agency to suspend, discipline or punish the Claimant in respect of the same set of facts testified to by the Claimant in his Witness Statement on Oath as regarding the mass housing scheme allocations which have already been investigated and prosecuted, the outcome of which have not been challenged on appeal, will amount to calling the Claimant to answer twice for the same case which he has fully answered. On this assertion, counsel placed reliance on the authority of NIGERIAN ARMY vs. AMINU KANO (2010) 1 SC (Pt. 11) Pg. 229 Para 5 – 10; SUNDAY vs. THE STATE (2017) LPELR-42140 (CA) and KARUM vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40473 (CA). Counsel also placed reliance on Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and C8 and urged the court to resolve Issue 2 in favour of the Claimant. On Issue 3, counsel reproduced the provisions of Section 6 (2) and Section 8 of the Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act 2001 and submitted that only the 1st Defendant can deal, manage, discipline, call for investigation, and do such other things necessary and expedient for the efficient performance of the functions of the 1st Defendant and in doing so, the 1st Defendant does not require directions or supervision from the 2nd Defendant. Counsel argued that the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution is not an officer in the department of the office of the Attorney General and his appointment is not connected with the performance of the duties and functions of the 1st Defendant as provided for under S 174 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Counsel further contended that it was not open for the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution to write on behalf of the 2nd Defendant without any constitutional or legal backing and to give the directives in the manner he did and that it had not been shown that the 1st Defendant had knowledge or authorized the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla to give the said directive. It was further argued that even if the 1st Defendant had given such a directive, the action will be ultra vires the powers of the 1st Defendant for being a violation of the express provisions of S 174 (2) of the 1999 Constitution. See COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA PRISON SERVICES vs. ADEKANYE (1999) FNWLR (Pt. 602) 167; OSAHON vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 845) 89 at pp 120-121. Counsel urged the court to resolve Issue 3 in favour of the Claimant. COURT’S DECISION Before I consider this case, let me observe that a number of motions were filed by the Claimant in this suit. From the record, the Claimant’s motion ex parte filed on 28th June 2016 was heard and determined by this court. However, the motions on notice filed on 28th June 2016 and 14th July 2016 were not moved by the Claimant. At this stage of the matter, those motions are deemed abandoned by the Claimant. They are hereby struck out. I have earlier pointed out the fact that the Defendants did not defend this suit. They were given all the opportunity to be heard in the matter but they chose to allow the matter proceed without a defence. It is clear to me that the Defendants have no defence to the claims of the Claimants. The facts pleaded by the Claimant and evidence adduced by him remained uncontroverted and challenged. It is trite that where a Defendant is given opportunity to put up his defence and he fails to utilize same, the effect is that he admits the claims of the Claimant. In IYERE vs. BENDEL FEEDS AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1247 it was held where evidence given by a party is unchallenged or uncontroverted, a court of law must accept and act on it as the true position. See also OYENIYI vs. ADELEKE (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 476) 1902 at 1922. The Defendants’ failure to defend the suit means they do not dispute the case of the Claimant. Nevertheless, I will proceed to examine the evidence of the Claimant to see if indeed he has proved his case. I have examined the claims of the Claimant in the light of the evidence adduced by the Claimant in proof of his claims. The evidence shows that the Claimant is an employee of the 1st Defendant. The cause of action of the Claimant in this case is his allegation that the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution directed the 1st Defendant to suspend him based on a petition written against the Claimant. The Claimant’s complaints about the development are that the matters in respect of which he was directed to be suspended did not arise from his employment and that he has previously been prosecuted and discharged by the courts in respect of the same matter for which he was directed to be suspended. The Claimant also gave evidence to the effect that under the terms and conditions of his employment and the Civil Service Rules applicable to his employment, the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution does not have the power to direct his employer to suspend him from duty. From the facts of the case, the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution is not the employer of the Claimant and does not have any disciplinary power over the Claimant or supervisory power over the 1st Defendant under the Police Service Commission Act. He cannot therefore direct the Claimant’s suspension from duty. Any such directive by the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution is null and void. I also find that the petition in respect of which the directive for the Claimant’s suspension arose was not in respect of his employment duties but in respect of his actions in the management of the Police Service Commission Staff Multi-purpose Cooperative. Therefore, it is clear that the allegations against the Claimant were in respect of his conducts in the management of the Cooperative and not in respect of his official duties in the 1st Defendant. It will therefore be unconscionable for the 1st Defendant to suspend the Claimant based on allegation not connected to his employment duties. The Claimant has also shown that following some criminal allegations made against him and the executive members of the Cooperative in respect of their activities as executives of the Cooperative, they were arrested and charged to the Magistrate Court. One of the FIRs was withdrawn and a charge was preferred against the Claimant and the executive members of the Cooperative in the High Court of the FCT. The charge was later discontinued by the 2nd Defendant and the Claimant was discharged by the High Court while in the other FIR against the Claimant, his no case submission was upheld and he was discharged. The Claimant was subsequently recalled to duty by the 1st Defendant until the recent petition against him. Having been tried and discharged by the courts in respect of the same allegations, to allow further investigation or prosecution of the Claimant on the same matter is to permit the Claimant to be suffered twice in respect of the same matter for which he was previously suspended, tried and discharged. That course will not be in accord with justice and fairness. From the totality of the evidence adduced by the Claimant, I find merit in the Claimant’s case. Besides the fact that the Claimant’s suit is not defended, I also find that the Claimant has proved his case. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are granted. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. It is declared that the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, acting on behalf of the 2nd Defendant, has no power to direct the Claimant to make representations to him and or direct the 1st Defendant to place the Claimant on suspension. 2. It is declared that the Claimant cannot be suffered or vexed twice in respect of the same issue and facts for which he was previously suspended for about two years, investigated, charged to court, tried and discharged. 3. It is further declared that the 1st and 2nd Defendants cannot validly take any disciplinary measures against the Claimant on account of the affairs, management and control of the Police Service Commission Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd or anything connected therewith being matters outside the scope of the Claimant’s employment duties. 4. An order is made setting aside the directive of the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, purportedly given on behalf of the 1st Defendant, in the letters of 20th June 2016 with ref. No. HAGF/PSC/2016/VOL.1/1 and 23rd June 2016 with Ref. No. HAGD/PSC/2016/VOL/1/2. 5. An order of perpetual injunction is given, restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants from further suspending, interrupting, interfering or in any other manner whatsoever from taking any further punitive or disciplinary measure against the Claimant on account of any matter covered by the previous arrest, prosecution, charges, trial and discharge for which the Claimant was suspended and recalled after two years upon the advice of the 2nd Defendant. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge