Download PDF
JUDGMENT The claimant in this suit filed a fresh complaint on the 28/2/2018 after this suit was transferred to this court wherein he seeks the following relieves from this court: 1. A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant from the Police Force is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. 2. A declaration that the failure of the defendant’s to avail claimant copy(ies) of the orderly room trial written notice of the punishment imposed on him before his surprised eviction from the police barrack offend Regulation 385 of Nigeria Police Regulation and same amount to breach of claimant’s right of appeal under Section 391 of the Police Regulation and Section 36(7) of the 1999 Constitution as ammended. 3. An order restoring the claimant to all the rights and privileges accruing to him by virtue of his employment as if same had not been tampered with. 4. Arrears of salaries accruing to the claimant between the month of December, 2014 till date and until judgment and execution or compliance. 5. Any order(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Filed along with the complaint is the claimant witness statement on oath and a list of documents the claimant intends to rely upon. Upon being served with the originating process the defendants filed a statement of defence on the 29/3/2018 along with a witness deposition of their sole witness. Hearing in this suit commenced on the 19/4/2018 and ended on the 7/6/2018. The counsels for the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The claimant was enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force on the 1st day of March, 2008. He was posted to Ezeagu division of the Nigeria Police Enugu state as a patrol driver he was later transferred to ‘’B” Department Operation, Enugu State Command on the same assignment after several other postings he was posted to serve as the domestic house driver of the 1st defendant who was the Commissioner of Police in Enugu state. That from November, 2013 to March, 2014, 1st defendant started nursing suspicion that, claimant was having illicit sexual relationship with 1st defendant’s wife by name Fatima Julian Adamu, an act claimant denied complicity. Due to the suspicion the 1st defendant transferred the claimant from his house to Awgu Division. On the 5th day of June, 2014, he was delegated to go for training “Formed Police Unit” (FPU) combat training at Ila Oragun Osun State on serial No. 858. That after the FPU training, on the 23rd day of October, 2014, claimant received police signal/wireless message to report at Abuja for Liberia F-part peace keeping interview and assessment exercise. On the 10th of November 2014, claimant was excused out of the training ground while on parade by one Superintendent of Police (SP) Jagaba who informed claimant that 1st defendant phoned him demanding that claimant should not be deployed to Liberia but instead should return back to Enugu State Police Command. On return to his station in Awgu Division, he was served with a police wireless message dated 11th day of November, 2014 titled “Discipline rank and file” The claimant was latter detained for 16 days at the Enugu state police command from 18th November to 3rd December 2014. On the 25th and 26th November 2014 he was subjected to orderly room trial on an allegation of the offence of discreditable conduct and insubordination by the 2nd defendant without being allowed a legal representation and his request to call vital witnesses. The claimant was again brought before the 3rd defendant for another orderly room trial. His request that the 1st defendant wife be brought as his witness resulted in the trial being aborted and he was re-arraigned again before the 4th defendant in another orderly room trial. The claimant alleged that he was not allowed to cross examine the 1st defendant who testified or allowed to call his witnesses. He also allege that he was defaulted and tried orderly room without orderly room proceedings served on him even on his request and by this denied him of useful materials in appealing the orderly room trial to a police higher body or hierarchy. No exposure/revelation was made to claimant of his dismissal, neither was his dismissal published by way of police wireless message or daily force order as is notorious of the entitlement of all officers of the police rank and file. The claimant was later forced to vacate his residence. These in a nutshell are the facts of this suit. The claimant testified as CW1 on the 19/4/2018 and tendered the following exhibits; 1. Exhibit C1, dated 22/3/2008 titled Recruitment and Training (Specialist). 2. Exhibit C2, Police wireless message dated 3/11/2014 3. Exhibit C3, police wireless message dated 10/11/2014 4. Exhibit C4, claimant force identity card No 441963. During cross examination the defendant also tendered Exhibit C5, the Nigerian Police statement of witness/claimant. The defendant’s witness DW1 testified on the 7/6/2018 and tendered the following documents; 1. Exhibit D1. Police wireless message 2. Exhibit D2. The Nigerian Police Defaulters Charge Sheet and Orderly room trial proceedings. 3. Exhibit D3. Document titled Defaulter’s Charge Sheet and orderly room trial proceedings . 4. Exhibit D4. Document titled Police Wireless Message. 5. Exhibit D5. Inventory of items ejected from the claimant house. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION. From the facts and circumstances of this case, the claimant is challenging his dismissal from the police force on the grounds that the orderly room trial conducted by the defendants that led to his dismissal was in breach of his right to fair hearing. From the foregoing I think the issue for determination is; ‘whether the principles of fair hearing was observed in the orderly room trial that led to the dismissal of the claimant’ The resolution of this issue will determine whether the claims of the claimant can be granted by this honourable court. In prove of his claims the claimant tendered Exhibit C1 and Exhibit C4 as evidence of his employment status with the Nigerian Police. He testified that he was enlisted in the police force on the 1/3/2008 and after several postings he was posted to serve in the 1st defendant house as a domestic driver and assigned to drive the wife of the defendant who is the POWA Chairperson. He testified that due to suspicion that he was having an affair with the wife of the 1st defendant, which the claimant denied, he was posted out of the 1st defendant house to Awgu Division of the Nigerian Police. He testified that he was release to go for training for combat training for peace keeping at Ila Oregun in Osun state. That while he was at the training a signal tendered as Exhibit C3 was sent requiring him to report back to Enugu Division of the Nigerian Police. On arrival he was detained and latter brought before Orderly Room Trial for a service offence of ‘Discreditable Conduct, Insubordination and Disobedience to Lawful Order’. He testified that he was detained and latter brought before an orderly room trial presided over By the 2nd , 3rd and 4th defendant respectively. DW4 who testified as the sole witness of the defendant tendered Exhibit D2 the Orderly Room Defaulter Charge sheet and the proceedings conducted by the 3rd defendant which the claimant participated but objected to the proceedings on the grounds that a material witness i.e. the wife of the 1st defendant was not called as a witness. The DWI also tendered Exhibit DW3, the Defaulter Charge Sheet and the proceedings of the orderly room trial conducted by the 4th defendant who testifies as DW1. The complain of the claimant are that the proceedings contained in Exhibit D3 violated his right to fair hearing. The defendants through DW1 denied the several allegation of facts made by the claimant. In his written deposition DW1 testified that at the orderly room trial, two exhibits were admitted namely, the written statement of the claimant and his GSM phone containing some pornographic videos he admitted he sent to the 1st defendant wife were admitted in evidence without objection by the claimant. The statement was tendered as Exhibit C5. He testified that at the trial 6 witnesses including the 1st defendant testified against the claimant whereby the claimant was asked to cross examine each witness after their testimony but he said he had no questions for each of them. He testified that at the end of the trial he recorded the punishment of dismissal against the claimant and he notified him of the award of the punishment of dismissal on him. He pleaded allocutus and pleaded for mercy. That the claimant was also reminded of his right of appeal within seven days upon the receipt of the notification of punishment. He testified that the claimant was in turn notified of his punishment in writing and again through his DPO vide police wireless message dated 110900/12/2014 tendered as Exhibit D4. He testified that the 1st defendant only appeared at the orderly room trial as a witness and that he was the adjudicating officer. He testified that rather than appealing against the decision the claimant chose to write petition against the 1st defendant. That there was no breach of any rule of natural justice of nemo judex incausa sua. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this matter. I think it is the proceedings in Exhibit D3 and not D2 that is the document that this court has to critically examine to determine whether the complaint of breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing is justified. It is trite law that an administrative body or tribunal must observe the rules of natural justice in its proceeding which may lead to the dismissal of an employee. See the case of NJC & Ors V. Senlong [2010]LPELR-4582 (CA) . I have carefully examined Exhibit D3, the claimant in this suit participated in the proceedings in Exhibit D3. Six witnesses were called to testify in the orderly room trial. On all the days that the witnesses testified the claimant was present and was given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses that testified including the 1st defendant. The claimant was given the opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses but the claimant refuse to cross examine all but one of the witnesses who testified. The claimant testified in person and also called CSP Ita Selong who testifies on 29/11/2014. He was cross examined by the claimant. On the 2/12/2014 as shown on page 9 and 10 of Exhibit D3 the claimant could not produce his other witnesses the adjudicating officer sought to adjourn the proceedings to another date but the claimant opted to continue with the proceedings. This is clearly revealed in Exhibit D3. The claimant thereby waived his rights to call further witnesses in the proceedings. From the state of evidence as contained in the orderly room trial Exhibit D3, This court is satisfied that the defendant afforded the claimant the opportunity to present his defence before the verdict of dismissal was pronounced on him. In the case of Union Bank of Nig. PLC V. Astra Builders (W.A) Ltd. [2010] LPELR-3383 (SC). The Supreme Court Per Adekeye JSC. Held ‘ The yardstick for determining the observance of fair hearing in trials is not the question whether any injustice has been occasioned on any party due to want of hearing. It is rather the question whether an opportunity of hearing was afforded to parties entitled to be heard’ The claimant counsel in his written address has contended that because the 1st defendant was the head of the police formation in Enugu and the adjudication officer of the orderly room trial ie. The 4th defendant was a subordinate officer under him, fair hearing was denied the claimant because it amounted to the 1st defendant being a judge in his own case. I do not see any merit in this argument. From Exhibit D3 the 1st defendant only testifies as a witness, also as testified by DW1 in paragraph 26(a) (which was not challenged), the orderly room trial was reviewed by DCP Oyenkunle Adegoyega. Also DW1 was the adjudicating officer. There is also no evidence that the 1st defendant took part in the decision making process of the orderly room trial. There can be no question of the procedure running fault of the principle of nemo judex incausa sua. The claimant counsel in his written address agrees that the orderly room trial is an Administrative Tribunal. Counsel however argues that the allegation of offence on the charge sheet Exhibit D3 gives the claimant the constitutional right to be represented by a counsel pursuant to Section 36 (6) a, b, c and of the 199 Constitution as amended and Articles 7,13 and 15 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right as against the provisions of Section 384 (6) of the Police Act, which provides that, In ‘any orderly room proceedings, the defaulter shall be entitled to make his own defence but shall not be represented by any person whatsoever’. The claimant counsel contends that the non-representation of the claimant by a legal practitioner violated the claimant rights to fair hearing. First I must point out that by this argument the claimant counsel wants this court to raise the standard of the orderly room trial to that of a criminal trial. If the claimant counsel position be anything to go by then the charge sheet ought to have been in respect of criminal offences known to law. However I have examined the charge sheet and the allegations contained therein The offence for which the claimant was charged is offence of Discreditable Conduct, Insubordination and Disobedience to Lawful Order’. These are offences against service of the Nigerian Police. These offences are not known or provided for in our criminal legislation in Nigeria. Also the orderly room trial for all intent and purpose is not a criminal trial. Therefore as rightly argued by the defendants counsel S.36(5) of the 1999 Constitution relied upon by the claimant counsel has no application to an orderly room trial. Furthermore, even where an allegation of crime is raised in an administrative tribunal hearing, that does not vitiate the proceedings or raise the proceedings to that of a criminal trial for which like in this case the orderly room trial must lose its jurisdiction. In Eke Umazi Ndukwe V. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee & Anor [2007]LPELR-1978(SC). The Supreme Court Held ‘ Where a charge or complaint against a person before an administrative tribunal or body doubles as a crime under the Criminal Code and the person accused has admitted committing the offence or offences the administrative body had the jurisdiction to proceed to sanction the erring officer without first referring the matter for trial and determination before a court of competent jurisdiction’. It is not a violation of the principle of fair hearing for a party not to be represented by a counsel in an administrative proceedings. As held in Ekperokun V. UNILAG [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) at 162, ‘where a law set up a tribunal or board of inquiry to conduct investigation and to impose penalty, such a board or tribunal must not conduct its inquiry in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice; it must observe the rule against interest and bias”. All that is required in an administrative tribunal proceeding such as the orderly room trial is the observance of the rule of fair hearing which was duly so observed in the proceedings evidenced by exhibit D3. I therefore do not find any conflict between S. 384(6) of the Police Act and S. 36 (6)d of the 1999 constitution. To say otherwise will mean that the in-house disciplinary powers of the employer over the employee would be eroded if at every enquiry the employee must have the right to be represented by a legal practitioner. Even if this were to be the case, there in no evidence before this court that the claimant requested to be represented by counsel and was denied one. Rather the claimant opted to proceed with the trial by conducting his case by himself. He also cross examined the CSP Ita Selong on the 29/11/2014 and opted not to cross examine the other witnesses. The claimant if he was averse to the trial ought to have refused to participate by refusing to say anything throughout the trial as a protest. However even in Exhibit D2 he participated in the proceeding before he was given another trial in Exhibit D3. I therefore find no justification for the claims of the claimant in these regards and they are therefore discountenanced. The claimant also seeks a declaration that that the failure of the defendant’s to avail claimant copy(ies) of the orderly room trial and written notice of the punishment imposed on him before his surprised eviction from the police barrack offends Regulation 385 of Nigeria Police Regulation and same amount to breach of claimant’s right of appeal under Section 391 of the Police Regulation and Section 36(7) of the 1999 Constitution. Again I find no merit in this argument. It is on record that the claimant was present at the orderly room trial on the day the findings were read. Thereafter there is no evidence that was led by the claimant that he applied for the record to pursue an appeal and he was denied that right. Furthermore, S. 36(7) of the 1999 constitution relied upon by the claimant’s counsel relates to the rights to apply for and obtain records of proceedings in a criminal trial, as I have already stated the orderly room trial was not a criminal trial. Assuming it was, there is no evidence to show that the claimant exercised his right by applying for the records. The claims of the claimant on this score fails and is hereby dismissed. This court is unable to grant any of the relieves sought by the claimant. The claimant has failed to justify his entitlement to any of the claims. All the claims fail and are hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly