Download PDF
RULING By a motion on notice dated 8th February 2012 and brought pursuant to Order 19 Rule 11 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, sections 1, 2(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the claimant/applicant is praying for – 1. An order mandating the defendants/respondents to produce all the documents and items listed in the Amended Notice to Produce and Additional List of Documents dated 17th November 2011 to be relied upon at the trial of this suit. 2. Such further order or other orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The motion on notice is supported by a 3-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Sunday Adesina Adenuga, the claimant/applicant in this suit. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit is paragraph 2(a) – (h), which provides as follows – a) That the originating processes in this suit were filed on the 24th day of March 2011 and one of the originating processes filed included a “Notice To Produce” dated same 24th March 2011 which listed 3 (three) items to be produced by the defendants for the effectual trial of this suit. b) That consequent upon that the 1st – 4th defendants filed a joint Statement of Defence dated 23rd May 2011 and served same on the claimant through Aramide Adeogun Esq. of counsel on 26th May 2011 at 2.35pm by a bailiff of the Court. c) That the 1st – 4th defendants were out of the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court for the filing of the said Statement of Defence and the claimant had also filed a motion on notice dated 20th May 2011 praying the Court to enter summary judgment in favour of the claimant. d) That on 27th June 2011 when the matter came up before the court, the counsel to the 1st – 4th defendants moved her application for extension of time within which to file and serve the Statement of Defence out of time. And same was duly granted whereupon the claimant withdrew its motion for summary judgment. e) That the claimant has now studied the said Statement of Defence and the documents sought to be relied upon at the trial of this suit by the defendants and this has necessitated (1) Reply to the Statement of Defence (2) Amended Notice to Produce (3) Amended List of Witnesses and (4) Additional List of Documents to be relied upon at the trial of this suit by the claimant. f) That the additional documents listed in the Amended Notice to Produce are: DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT(S)/ITEM(S) PARTY TO PRODUCE All tapes used in the course of investigation of the claimant and the said Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu. -- 1st & 2nd Defendants Final Report of the Personnel Management Board -- 1st Defendant Budgetary Allocations of the 2nd Defendant for the years 2001 – 2004 -- 2nd Defendant Letter from the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture dated 19th March 2003 remitting the sum of N10,050,000.00 -- 3rd Defendant Letter from the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agric dated 10th June 2003 remitting the sum of N2,500,000,00 -- 3rd Defendant Letter from the 3rd Defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agric dated 10th May 2003 remitting the sum of N3,500,000.00 -- 3rd Defendant Staff Files of the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu -- 2nd Defendant g) That it will be in the interest of justice that this application is granted so that the court, in the determination of this action, is seised of all facts that will enable it reach a just and proper decision. h) That the grant of this application will not in any way prejudice the interests of the 1st – 4th Defendants but will rather promote the cause of justice. The claimant then filed a written address dated 8th February 2012. From this written address, the case of the claimant is that he was a civil servant of the 1st defendant between 1996 and June 2009. He served in various capacities and rose to the position of Assistant Director of Accounts before his appointment was terminated by the 1st defendant in June 2009. That the issues that led to the termination of his appointment were as a result of what was termed his ‘misappropriation’ and ‘misapplication’ of the funds of the 3rd defendant between 2001 – 2004 as it related to the management of Fertilizer Funds. The 1st defendant thereupon issued Query Letters to 3 (three) officials: the claimant, Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu (the then General Manager of the 3rd defendant) and Dr. Y. O. Basorun (then Director of Agric Services and currently the Permanent Secretary in the 2nd defendant). That contrary to what was alleged against the claimant, the claimant carried out the instructions of his superiors issued to him (i.e. the two personalities mentioned above). Furthermore, that whilst the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu were terminated from the services of the 1st defendant, Dr. Y. O. Basorun only received a reprimand from the 1st defendant whilst Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu's termination has been converted to retirement. The claimant then framed three issues for the determination of the Court, namely – a) Whether this Court has the power to mandate the 1st – 4th defendants to produce the said documents and items listed in the “Amended Notice to Produce” dated 17th November 2011. b) Whether non-production of the documents and items listed in the “Amended Notice to Produce” dated 17th November 2011 by the defendants will be tantamount to the breach of the constitutional right of the claimant to fair hearing. c) Where the answer to the above is in the affirmative, whether the court can compel the 1st – 4th defendants and their counsel to produce the said documents and items and whether such failure on defendants and counsel's part will not be tantamount to contempt of court. Regarding issue a) i.e. whether this Court has the power to mandate the 1st – 4th defendants to produce the said documents and items listed in the “Amended Notice to Produce” dated 18th July 2011, counsel to the claimant contended that by the provisions of Order 19 Rule 11 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, this court is empowered to order either of the parties in a suit to produce documents requested by the adverse party. The said Rule provides that – The court may on its own motion or on the application of any party order any person to appear before the court as a witness or to produce any document. To counsel, the very clear and undiluted meaning of this Rule of court is to aid the proper administration of justice and to ensure that not only is justice done but must also be seen to have been done. That proper justice is based on evidence presented by parties to a dispute and its evaluation. When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court, there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure that certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy. That this law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g. oral or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g. physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible. It is in this wise that over the centuries, several key legal principles have been developed which guide the law as to presentation of evidence. Some of these principles relate to relevancy of evidence, burden of proof, presumptions and discovery, just to mention a few. Counsel continued that it is not unheard of that a party to a dispute may try to hide information or document that may dent its case before a court or tribunal. It is commonly said that no one would knowingly admit a wrong. Thus, the principle of discovery in legal proceedings are to ensure that all relevant facts, information and exhibits are made available to the other party and the court in order to ensure that justice is done. It is in this light that the compilers of our Rules of court have placed Rules such as Order 19 Rule 11 in the Rules governing proceedings in this Court. That the question of the relevancy of the said documents or items to the effective delivery of justice is a matter to be dealt with at the trial stage of the suit. Counsel then submitted that this court, being a superior court of record and having been clothed with the authority to mandate the production of persons to appear before it or documents, is urged to so order the defendants in this suit to make available all the documents and items listed in our application before the Court. Counsel referred the Court to the case of Alliance and Leicester Building Society v. Ghahremani [1992] NLJR 313, [1992] RVR 198, the facts of which according to counsel were that a solicitor who had acted for various parties in an alleged mortgage fraud was the subject of an order restraining him from destroying or altering any documents relating to the alleged fraud and requiring him to deliver those documents to the plaintiffs solicitors. A partner in that firm attended the solicitor's office to execute the order and asked to see any relevant computer information in the solicitor's possession. The partner was given access to a file containing a completion statement which referred on its first page to a consideration of £6m, this being the sum advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants for the purchase of a hotel which allegedly cost only £2,450,000, the defendants allegedly appropriating the rest. An information technology expert engaged by the plaintiff’s solicitors examined the file later on the same day and discovered that the page referring to the £6m had been deleted. On the plaintiff’s application to commit the solicitor for contempt of court, it was held that the court was aware of the inherent unlikelihood of a solicitor behaving in the way alleged, and also that the criminal standard of proof applied to such cases. These factors made the court most unwilling to hold a solicitor in contempt unless no feasible alternative explanation for what had happened was forthcoming. Having considered various preliminary points raised in the solicitor's defence, and also his assertion that the deletion was due to an error by either a secretary or the plaintiff’s expert, the court could only conclude that the solicitor was responsible for the deletion and was, therefore, in contempt. It had been a most foolhardy thing for a solicitor to do, but the court could come to no other conclusion. Accordingly, the committal order would be made. Regarding issue b) i.e. whether the non-production of the documents and items listed in the “Amended Notice to Produce” dated 17th November 2011 by the defendants will be tantamount to the breach of the constitutional right of the claimant to fair hearing, counsel to the claimant contended that the fair hearing provisions are embedded in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and several case laws have been developed in this regard. To counsel, the Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition at page 789 defines “Fair Hearing” as – A judicial or administrative hearing conducted in accordance with due process. AND A hearing at which the parties are allowed notice of each other's claims and are given ample opportunity to present their positions with evidence and argument. That the same dictionary at page 575 defines “Due Process” as – The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case. Counsel then submitted that in law and equity, parties to a dispute in litigation are bound to full disclosure of all material and relevant facts in the case. This position is further supported by the Rules of this Court (Order 3 Rule 4 (ii) and (iii)). That the reasons are not far-fetched. The law frowns upon any form of ambush by parties to the dispute and in order to encourage fair-hearing by the parties in the dispute. Counsel referred the Court to the provisions of sections 89(a) and 91 of the Evidence Act 2011. Section 89(a) states as follows – Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when – (a) The original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power (i) of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved; or (ii) of any person legally bound to produce it, and when after the notice mentioned in section 91 such person does not produce it. Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2011 states as follows – Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 89(a) shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, onto a legal practitioner employed by such party, such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice to produce is prescribed by law then such notice as the court considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case. To counsel, the combined meaning of both sections of the Evidence Act is to the effect that a party to a suit may lead secondary evidence of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the document is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the adverse party or any person bound to produce it and when after such notice, such person fails to produce it. In essence, secondary evidence can be given, if and only if, the party seeking to rely on same has a secondary copy of same and not where he does not. Where the party seeking to rely on such secondary evidence does not have a copy, it is mandatory that the party in whose possession, power or control such a document is must produce same. That it is trite that when a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy. The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g. oral or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g. physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible in a judicial or administrative proceeding. To counsel, legal scholars of the Anglo-American tradition have long regarded evidence as being of central importance to the law. That in every jurisdiction based on the English common law tradition, evidence must conform to a number of rules and restrictions to be admissible. That evidence must be relevant, that is, it must be directed at proving or disproving a legal element. Counsel referred the Court to the Supreme Court decision in Chief Nicholas Banna v. Telepower Nigeria Limited [2006] 7 SC (Pt. 1) at page 1, where Oguntade, JSC stated as follows – The provision dealing with fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is for the protection of all parties to a case, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants alike. It will be oppressive to interpret the provisions as conferring a protection on just one of the parties to a case. In this connection, I will like to call to mind the views of this court per Oputa, JSC, Willoughby v. International Merchant Bank (Nig.) Ltd [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 48) 105 at 131, paragraph 11: “…The courts' primary function is to do justice between the parties to a dispute. One sided justice will amount to injustice…the law is made to ensure justice. Rules of Court are handmaids of justice. It is only by the orderly administration of law and obedience to the Rules that legal justice can be attained….” Counsel then submitted that they agree completely with the views expressed by the apex court and that Order 19 Rule 11 and other Rules contained in the Rules of this Court were not made for nothing but rather to aid justice and ensure that all parties are opportune to place before the Court all necessary materials for adjudication of justice. According to counsel, Hon. Justice P. A. Onamade in his book, Documentary Evidence - Cases & Materials Vol. 1 (2002) at pages 106 – 108 tagged “Sections 98, 192 and 193 Distinguished”, distinguished the word, “PRODUCE” in section 98 (now section 91) and the one in sections 192 and 193 of the Evidence Act. To counsel, the learned author stated in part as follows – The “production” in section 98 means the production of the original by the adverse party, failing which the other party can tender the copy or secondary evidence. That adverse party in section 98 need not even come to court. The requirements are fulfilled if he surrenders the original to his counsel who can then produce it in court. The word ‘produce’ in sections 192 and 193 (similar to current sections 242, 244 and 245 of the 2011 Evidence Act) was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of J. O. Famakinwa v. University of Ibadan & anor [1992] 7 NWLR (Pt. 255) 608. His Lordship Salami (JCA) [as he then was] had the following to say: “The determination of the issue turns on the interpretation to be placed on the word ‘produce’. The word is nowhere defined in the Act…The word ‘produce’ can therefore not by any stretch of imagination be construed to mean ‘tender’ or ‘give’. I find support for this proposition in the case of Ogbunyiya & ors v. Okudo & ors [1979] 3 LRN 318 which, although, is a decision on the interpretation of section 133 of the same Evidence Act is illuminating or of great assistance in the interpretation of sections 192 and 193 of the Evidence Act (supra) at pages 322 and 323, the Supreme Court per Idigbe JSC (as he then was) said: “...The ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘produce’ is to bring forward or to ‘bring out’ or ‘to put on the stage’...as far back as 1834 it was decided in Perry v. Gibson (1834) 1 Ad & E1 48 that a witness called merely for the purpose of producing a document need not be sworn.”…the word ‘produce’ therefore means no more than ‘bring forward’ or ‘to bring out’ or ‘to put on stage’. A person who brings forward a document cannot be said to have given it in evidence not to talk of his having capacity to give or tender it in evidence. To counsel, in this instance, the documents sought to be produced by the defendants are relevant to the proof of the claimant's claims against the defendants and the documents are as listed in paragraph 2(f) of the affidavit in support, which paragraph was reproduced earlier. Counsel then went on to submit that – a. The tapes requested for are part of the administrative steps taken by the 1st defendant whenever an inquiry or panel is set up to investigate any person(s) or matter in the Commission. They serve as back-up of oral testimonies given in the course of the inquiry and can shed more light on the goings on during same. b. The Final Report of the Personnel Management Board has already been frontloaded by the defendants in their joint Statement of Defence dated 23rd May 2011. c. The Budgetary Allocations of the 2nd defendant showing the sums allocated to the 3rd defendant for the period 2001 – 2004 are necessary because those sums were never released by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant whereupon the 3rd defendant was denied funds for its regular operations and consequently the then General Manager of the 3rd defendant, Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu who was the immediate boss of the claimant gave sundry instructions to him to disburse funds. d. The letters requested were all remittances to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. These letters are in the custody of the 2nd and 3rd defendants and the claimant has no secondary evidence of same. e. The staff files of the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu are required for inspection purposes. The claimant had averred that Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu's termination had been converted to retirement after both of their respective appointments had been terminated by the 1st defendant. With the above brief explanation on the relevancy of the documents and items to be produced by the 1st – 3rd defendants, counsel prayed the Court to mandate them so to do to satisfy the constitutional requirement of fair hearing. Regarding issue c), counsel pointed out that it is a twin-headed issue: (i) Whether the court is empowered to compel the defendants and their counsel to produce the said documents; and (ii) whether failure on the part of the defendants to produce the documents after the court has so ordered will not be tantamount to contempt of court. For the former, that Order 19 Rule 11 is abundantly clear and unambiguous that the Court is clothed with authority to mandate the defendants to produce the documents required in this suit; and section 246(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 also states as follows – The court or any other person empowered by law to take evidence, may, in order to clear up ambiguities or to clarify points which have been left obscure in the evidence given by any witness, ask any question he pleases, in any form at any time of any witness; or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant: and may order the production of any document or thing: and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order or; without leave of the court to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question. Counsel then submitted that the Court is empowered to mandate the defendants to produce the documents requested in the Amended Notice to Produce dated 18th July 2011. On the latter issue, counsel referred the Court to the definition of contempt of court by the Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at page 360, which is – Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or legislature because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice. It is punishable usually by fine or imprisonment. To counsel, there is a plethora of case law in this regard. That in the event that the court mandates the defendants to produce the documents and they fail and/or neglect to produce same, the court is empowered to cite the defendants for contempt of court. That aside from the issue of contempt of court, the Supreme Court in Abdu Mohammed v. State [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 439 and particularly at page 456, Olatawura, JSC considered the issue of suppression of evidence in the following words – Suppression of evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, is a violation of the principle of fair hearing entrenched in our constitution. It is a serious allegation which must not be made lightly. Suppression of evidence is a denial of justice. Once it is established that evidence in a trial has been suppressed, such a trial should be set aside. See the strictures of this court in Odofin Bello v. The State [1966] NSCC 268 where the prosecution refused to disclose evidence favourable to the accused. Ademola, CJN on page 274 of the report said: “We cannot do better than remind Counsel that it is the duty of the prosecution to put all the facts at its disposal before the court any evidence favourable to the accused. We shall be compelled to take serious action against a repetition of such action. It may in fact amount to a professional misconduct on the part of Counsel to suppress evidence in any trial. The accusation should not be made lightly”. To counsel, this position was even recently supported by the popular case of Dominic Strauss-Khan (immediate past CEO of the IMF). The prosecution in that case placed all materials at the disposal of the court and defence counsel which eventually led to the acquittal of the accused. Counsel then submitted that if the court mandates the 1st – 4th defendants and their counsel to produce that said documents and they fail to do so, it will not only amount to contempt of the court's proceedings but their actions shall also be deemed to be suppression of evidence which runs contrary to the age-long principle of fair hearing and is a denial of justice. That counsel are officers in the temple of justice and they are to assist the courts in ensuring that justice is not only done but must be seen to have been done. That the cases being handled by counsel should not be seen as a ‘do or die affair’ but rather it is the duty of counsel to ensure that justice is achieved as much as possible. In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to find in favour of the claimant in order to ensure that all material facts are placed before the court and for fair hearing to not only be done but must be seen to have been done. In reaction, the defendants filed a 9-paragraphed counter-affidavit dated 20th February 2012 and deposed to by Oluwafemi Adeniji, a law officer of the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, Alausa, Ikeja. The relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit are paragraphs 4 – 8, which provide as follows – 4) That all the documents in the defendants’ possession and that are relevant to the matter in question in this suit will be produced upon an order for same. 5) That the defendants do not have any tape in their custody as none was used in the course of the investigation of the claimant. 6) That the other documents requested for by the claimant are missing and same cannot be found for production. 7) That the non-production of the other documents requested for is not in a bid to suppress evidence or frustrate the course of justice. 8) That Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu whose file is requested to be produced is not a party to this suit. The defendants then filed a written address also dated 20th February 2012. The defendants framed only one issue for the determination of this Court, namely – 1. Whether in the circumstances, the Court should mandate the defendants to produce the documents and items listed in the Amended Notice to Produce dated 8th February 2012. 2. Whether the Rules of the National Industrial Court are not applicable. To counsel to the defendants, notice to produce is relevant where a party intends to give secondary evidence of the content of a document, the original of which is in possession of the other party, referring to section 98 of the Evidence Act [the relevance of this section to the statement of law made out here is in doubt given that the section deals with ‘cases in which proof of execution or of handwriting unnecessary’] and UBN Plc v. Idrisu [1999] 7 NWLR (Pt. 609) 105. Counsel continued that it is a known fact that the Disciplinary Board of Lagos State Civil Service Commission does not make use of tape recordings during disciplinary proceedings and as such the 1st defendant does not have in its possession such tapes as requested by the claimant. Similarly, that the defendants do not have in their possession some of the documents stated in the Amended Notice to Produce, hence cannot produce what is not in their possession by the principle of nemo dat quod non habet. That if the claimant is in possession of any copy of the documents, he should produce same. Moreover, that the request for production of staff file of Mr. Laidi Bolade Ojikutu is incompetent as the said Mr. Laidi Bolade Ojikutu is not a party to the instant action. The file is personal to Mr. Ojikutu and same falls within the information exempted under section 16(ii) of Freedom of Information Act 2011. In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to take into consideration the legal principle of nemo dat quod non habet. That it is trite that the Court should not make empty orders; and that all that the defendants have in their possession will be produced. After a careful consideration of the processes and submissions of counsel in this matter, I need to first point out that the hallmark of legal scholarship and advocacy is that for every proposition or submission made by counsel, there is the need to substantiate with verifiable authority. Where counsel chooses, therefore, to refer to authorities that cannot be verified, this must be denounced. Here I have in mind the submission of counsel to the claimant/applicant to the effect that the Supreme Court position in Abdu Mohammed v. State [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 439 particularly at 456 was even recently supported by the popular case of Dominic Strauss-Khan (immediate past CEO of the IMF). That the prosecution in that case placed all materials at the disposal of the court and defence counsel which eventually led to the acquittal of the accused. Not only is the submission of counsel not verifiable, it calls to question whether a Supreme Court decision in Nigeria requires external support in order for it to be binding on lower courts. I do not think so. That said, I now go to the merit of the case. It is not in doubt that this Court has the power to order the production of any document before it. Order 19 Rule 11, for instance, provides that this “Court may on its own motion or on the application of any party order any person to appear before [it] as a witness or to produce any document”. And by section 36(1)(c) of the Trade Disputes Act LFN 2004, this Court may “compel the production before it of books, papers, documents and other things for the purpose of enabling them to be examined or referred to so far as may be necessary in order to obtain information relevant to the matter referred to the [Court]”. The catch in this power is that the documents in question must be shown to be necessary and relevant to the determination of the case before the Court. Once the said documents are not necessary and relevant to the determination of the case at hand, their non-production cannot be a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing, nor is contemptuous of the Court, as the counsel to the claimant/applicant argued. What, therefore, presently calls for determination is whether the documents in question are necessary and relevant to the case at hand. The documents in question are – 1. All tapes used in the course of investigation of the claimant and the said Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu to be produced by the1st and 2nd defendants. 2. Final Report of the Personnel Management Board to be produced by the 1st defendant. 3. Budgetary Allocations of the 2nd defendant for the years 2001 – 2004 to be produced by the 2nd defendant. 4. Letter from the 3rd defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture dated 19th March 2003 remitting the sum of N10,050,000.00 to be produced by the 3rd defendant. 5. Letter from the 3rd defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agric dated 10th June 2003 remitting the sum of N2,500.000,00 to be produced by the 3rd defendant. 6. Letter from the 3rd defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agric dated 10th May 2003 remitting the sum of N3,500,000.00 to be produced by the 3rd defendant. 7. Staff files of the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu to be produced by the 2nd defendant. The case of the claimant is one against the termination of his employment. In that regard, the necessity and relevance of the documents sought to be produced must be gauged against the issue of the said termination. In this regard, the tapes used in the course of investigating the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu would be necessary and relevant only if shown to actually exist. The defendants denied the existence of the tapes arguing that the said investigation was not recorded. It is for the claimant/applicant to show that the investigation was recorded and that the said tapes actually exist. This, the claimant has not done; and so this Court cannot grant the order to produce. Regarding the Final Report of the Personnel Management Board, the claimant/applicant admitted that the defendants have already been frontloaded it in their joint Statement of Defence dated 23rd May 2011. This means that there is no longer any need for the order to produce. Regarding the budgetary allocations of the 2nd defendant for the years 2001 – 2004, I have not been shown how necessary and relevant this is to the case of the claimant to warrant the order to produce to be made. I, therefore, decline to grant the said order to produce. In respect of the letters from the 3rd defendant to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture dated 19th March 2003, 10th June 2003 and 10th May 2003 remitting the sums of N10,050,000.00, N2,500,000.00 and N3,500,000.00 respectively, I am not convinced of the relevance of these letters to the case of the claimant. In any event, the authentic copies of these letters would be in the possession of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, not the defendants. Since I am not convinced of the relevance of the letters, I decline to grant the order to produce in their regard. Regarding the staff files of the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu, the relevance of that of the claimant to this case is not in doubt. The staff file of Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu is equally relevant given the claim of the claimant that both of them were terminated although Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu’s termination was later converted to retirement. To the extent that this Court now has jurisdiction under section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, over unfair labour practice, in the interest of justice I shall grant the order to produce the staff file of both the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu, if not for anything, just so that the Court can ascertain that a comparatively just and equal treatment was meted out to both of them. In the circumstance of the case, therefore, the only order I shall grant, and which I hereby grant, is the order that the 2nd defendant shall produce for the inspection of this Court the staff files of both the claimant and Mr. Liadi Bolade Ojikutu as prayed for by the claimant. Ruling is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip