Download PDF
The claimant took out a writ of summons against the defendant at the Federal High Court Awka on the 12th April 2011 against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the interdiction and subsequent Termination of the plaintiffs appointment as aforesaid was done in flagrant breaches and/or contravention of the parties applicable conditions of service/ and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. 2. An order setting aside the order Terminating the plaintiffs appointment as Chief Admin Officer on Grade Level 14 reference No. INEC/A.004/1/12/X, with designation as Electoral Officer in the defendant Commission, contained in the letter of 3rd February 2011 reference No. INEC/A.004/IV/731. 3. An order for the reinstatement and immediate release/payment of all the plaintiffs outstanding emoluments/allowances and other entitlements due to him from 1st January 2010 until his reinstatement in the aforesaid office, or consequent due withdrawal/retirement in accordance with the applicable Conditions of Service. Accompanying the writ is the statement of claim, the claimant’s written statement on oath and copies of documents to be relied on. The case was subsequently transferred to this court pursuant to the order of the Federal High Court dated 27 April 2012. The defendant entered appearance, filed its statement of defence, witness statement on oath and copies of documents on 3rd January 2013. The claimant’s reply to the statement of defence was filed on 21 January 2013. The parties joined issues and the matter went to trial. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that by letter dated 27th March 1992 reference NEC/EN/S.7/SSI/32 he was appointed a Personnel Officer on Grade Level 08/2 and his appointment confirmed by letter effective from 12/5/94. Based on his performance, he received several promotions the last being to the position of Chief Administrative Officer on Grade Level 14 reference No. INEC/A.004/1/12/X with effect from 1/7/2007 notionally but with financial benefits from 1st March 2008. The claimant pleaded that the defendant is a Federal Government statutory body constituted under the Independent National Electoral Commission Act Cap 15 LFN 2004 operating with offices in all the State Headquarters and the Capital Territory of Abuja. That his appointment is subject to the Federal Public Service Rules 2006, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Staff Conditions of Service Rules 2007 and the Pension Reform Act 2004. He pleaded that on the eve of the April 2007 National Assembly /Presidential elections, he was posted from Orumba South LGA where he was serving as an Electoral Officer at Nnewi South LGA. That during the January 2008 Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise, he along with his other Electoral Officer cadre were instructed to periodically submit their DDC Machines used for capturing that exercise in the field to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Unit of the defendant whose exclusive responsibility it was to download the data therein. He pleaded that this directive was followed without any default until the completion of that exercise in September 2009. The claimant pleaded that during the 2006/7 voters registration ,he was at Orumba LGA and was posted in 2008 to Nnewi South LGA where he supervised the CVR exercise ending which ended on 28 September 2009. He pleaded that his duties as Electoral Officer Nnewi South LGA during the January 2009 CVR exercise is for the overall supervision of the A.R.O.s charged with the actual field registration as subordinates under him. That all the instructions for the whole of that exercise came from the State Resident Electoral Officer (REC) who distributes the Manual Registers and DDC Machines already configured by the ICT Unit and delineates the centres approved for the exercise. He pleaded that the data Captured in the laptop are submitted to him along with the manual register for cross checking which was done in the CVR exercise and found to be correct. Thereafter, the laptop was submitted to the ICT Unit for downloading into the Server kept and Managed exclusively by the technical department. The claimant pleaded that it is the duty of the ICT Unit to merge the data with the previously existing data collected in the 2006/7 voters registration exercise and produce the continuous voters register 2009 for each LGA. He pleaded that at the end of the CVR exercise, the voters register of 2009 was put on display for public scrutiny between 31st October and 9th November 2009 and no mix up or wrong entries was shown or reported. The claimant pleaded that at the end, a team of the ICT staff from Abuja came to Awka to work together with the ICT unit at Awka in processing the 2008/2009 voters registration data generated from the field. He pleaded that no Electoral Officer of his cadre was involved in the processing and copying of the said data into the National Data Server since that responsibility did not fall within their schedule and for which none of them had the requisite training. He pleaded that the defendant by its letter dated December 8, 2009 invited the Electoral officers including him along with Awka staff of the ICT and others to an Inquiry Panel from the defendant’s headquarters. He pleaded that the Panel commended him on the conduct of the CVR exercise but was asked whether he was involved in the functions of downloading that data to which he replied that the Electoral Officers responsibility ends with the generation of field data only, after which the data is submitted to the ICT for downloading and preservation. The claimant pleaded that the mix up of the 2006/7 registration with the 2009 CVR shown to him at the Panel Investigation came from the ICT Server and not from the DDC Machine used; that he was not asked anything specifically relating to any alleged dereliction of duty on his part or in collusion with anybody during the exercise and was told to go. He was therefore surprised to receive a letter from the Commission placing him on Interdiction with immediate effect until the review and determination of his level of culpability/involvement in the wrong entries in the register of voters. That in response he sent various petitions in compliance with the applicable conditions of service pleading for a review or an opportunity for fair hearing. The claimant pleaded that there was no response to his letters and then on the 17th February 2011, he received a letter of termination of his appointment dated 3rd February 2011 effective retrospectively from 31st January 2011 He pleaded that he had not at anytime been queried on any issue or default in the performance of his duties nor had he ever been confronted with any specific charges or offered any opportunity at a disciplinary process for any defence he may wish to put up or invited to participate at any of the subsequent committees that made recommendations thereon. He pleaded that the defendant’s decision to place him on interdiction followed by the termination is in breach of the INEC Staff Conditions of Service 2007, Federal Republic Of Nigeria Public Service Rules 2006 and section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and ought to be set aside. The claimant testified as the only witness in support of his claims. His examination in chief was by witness statement on oath sworn to on the 12th April 2011 and 21st January 2013 which he adopted. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings. Under cross examination, the claimant told the court that as Electoral Officer, his duty is to supervise and is also administrative. He said was not trained to carry out registration but that the Registration Officers were trained to handle the DDC Machines and that the data being fed into the machines are pictures and finger prints of the registrants. He told the court that all the Electoral Officers in Anambra State were invited to appear before a Panel in Awka but that they were not told the reason they were invited. He said he was surprised that after being commended by the Panel he was placed on interdiction. He admitted that mix up of registration data can amount to gross misconduct. In re-examination, the claimant told the court that his duties do not include supervision of the ICT Unit and that no allegation was made against him before his appointment was terminated. The claimant then closed his case. The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimant was its employee under specific service conditions and these conditions were evoked for his interdiction and eventual termination of his appointment. The defendant pleaded that the directive for data download was followed without any default until the completion of the exercise in 2009. The defendant pleaded that it invited the claimant to an Investigative Panel Inquiry and heard evidence from 38 persons including the claimant who was number 23 on the list and his oral representation was received. The defendant pleaded that the Panel unanimously found the claimant guilty of wrong entries in the register of voters. It pleaded that thereafter, it placed the claimant on interdiction pending final recommendation and that it is entitled to terminate the claimant’s appointment at its discretion in accordance with the provisions of the INEC Staff Conditions of Service and Public Service Rules 2006. The defendant pleaded that it is not obliged to pay any emoluments/allowances to the claimant. It called one witness Engr E.T.Akem (DW). His examination in chief was by witness statement on oath sworn to on the 3rd January 2013 which he adopted. It was in terms of the pleadings. Under cross-examination, DW told the court that claimant was the Electoral Officer for Nnewi South LGA during the CVR exercises in 2009 and that the Electoral Officer receives directives from the REC of the State. DW agreed that the function of the Electoral Officer is to supervise the gathering of information for registration purposes. He told the court that the data for Nnewi South was captured on the DDC Machine together with the manual register and submitted to the ICT Unit. DW agreed that after the data has been captured into the DDC Machine, it is the ICT Unit that downloads it into the Server. DW told the court that the wrong mix up shown on the defendant’s Annexture II cannot be pinned down to Nnewi South LGA and that the Investigatory Panel did not examine the laptop or call for it. DW admitted that there was a voter display registration in respect of the exercise conducted by the claimant but that it was not to his knowledge that there was any complaint in respect of the display. DW told the court that it was not to his knowledge that the defendant called the claimant to explain or defend the allegations against him; neither was it to his knowledge that the claimant was invited to make an input before the decisions taken by the Commission. DW told the court that there was nothing to show that Annextures (I), (II), (III) emanated from Nnewi South LGA. The defendant then closed its case. The parties were ordered to file their final written addresses. The defendant’s final address is dated 22nd April 2013 but filed on 2nd May 2013. The claimant’s final address is dated 15th May 2013 but filed on 5th June 2013. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted two issues for determination: 1. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 2. Whether the defendant’s termination of the plaintiff’s employment is in line with its condition of service and other applicable provisions of the law. He submitted that it is the reliefs sought by a party and the statement of claim that determines the jurisdiction of the court. He referred to Section 153(1) and 158(1) of the 1999 Constitution and submitted that the termination of the claimant’s appointment was carried out by a Public Body and therefore the decision of the defendant is quasi judicial which is binding, conclusive and final in nature. It was his contention that the Investigatory Panel set up by the defendant is a quasi judicial body. He submitted that the appropriate procedure of the court to upturn the defendant’s decision is by way of an application for judicial review. He argued that the claimant’s 1st relief seeks to upturn the termination carried out by a Public body, the 2nd relief is Certiorari in nature and the 3rd relief is an order of Mandamus. He referred to Order 22 of the Rules of this Court and submitted that the claimant must apply for judicial review before the jurisdiction of this court can be evoked to review the defendant’s decision terminating the claimant. He cited Nwaogwugwu v President F.R.N. [2007] 6 NWLR (incomplete citation), Onyemaize v Ojiako [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt 659)25 1,Fawehinmi v I.G.P.[2002] 7 NWLR (Pt 767) 606,A-G Anambra State v A-G Federation [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 302), Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 2 SCNR 341, Bronik Motors v Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296. On issue 2, he submitted that the claimant was given a fair hearing as he was invited and heard by the Panel of Investigation before he was terminated having been found guilty of serious misconduct. He argued that the termination is justifiable by reference to the provisions in the claimant’s conditions of service. He then urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case. The learned SAN based his submissions and arguments on the two issues submitted by the defence. He stated that the issues of jurisdiction now being raised by the defence were never raised in the defence pleadings contrary to the mandatory need for a party relying on statutory defence to an action to plead it specifically citing Onyenweuzor v Opusunji [2002] 6 NWLR (Pt 762) 72, Jeje v Kadiri [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt 65) 460.He submitted that the jurisdiction of this court is as set out in Section 254C (1) (a) of the Constitution (Third Alteration Act No 3 of 2011). He submitted that this is the only reference in the matter of determining the Courts jurisdiction and not the authorities relied upon by the defence which derive from considerations of the prerogative writs procedure which has nothing to do with the provisions of Section 6(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which provides the plenitude of the Judicial powers conferred on Courts of Superior Record. He urged the court to discountenance all the defence arguments in this regard. On issue 2, he submitted that from the totality of evidence adduced at the hearing, there is no justifiable basis for the sanctions inflicted on him by the defendant. He submitted that the claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavour, wrongly determined and therefore an order of reinstatement ought to issue citing Alhaji Baba v Nig. Civil Aviation Training Center Zaria [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt 192) 388, Ibama v SPDC Nig Ltd [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt 954) 364, Igwillo v CBN [2000] FWLR (Pt 18) 265 at 300, UNTHMB v Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt 363) 376, Iderima v R.S.C.S.C [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt 951) 378, Gov Kwara State v Alhaji Ojibara & Ors [2006] 11-12 SC 140 at 150. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, written submissions and authorities cited. I will adopt the two issues submitted by learned counsel to the defendant as the issues for determination in this judgement. I will begin with the issue of jurisdiction now being raised by the defence. It was not raised in the pleadings nor was any fact pleaded in that regard to be taken up at the trial. While it is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, on the authorities, it ought to be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings and for a party relying on a statutory defence, it is to be specifically pleaded. It is trite law that it is the claim of the claimant which determines the jurisdiction of the court. The court only needs to consider the complaint and the statement of facts. See A-G Anambra v A-G Federation [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 302) 692, A-G Federation v Oshiomhole [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt 860) 305. The jurisdiction of this court is today and in the main governed by section 254C (1) (a- l), (2), (3), (4) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration Act No 3 of 2011). I will for the purpose of this judgement reproduce section 254C (1) (a) as follows: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters- (a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from the workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; The claims of the claimant set out above in the writ and pleadings fall squarely within the purview of this Section. The jurisdiction conferred in this instance is Original. This provision is the only reference in the determination of this Courts jurisdiction. It supercedes the Rules of Court the defendant’s counsel relies upon in making his submissions. The authorities he has cited derive from considerations of the prerogative writs procedure. Learned counsel to the defendant is clearly in error. I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this action. There is no dispute between the parties on the following facts: (i) that the defendant is a statutory body constituted under the Independent National Electoral Commission Act Cap 15 LFN 2004; (ii) that the claimant was employed by the defendant, is subject to the INEC Staff Conditions of Service and the Federal Public Service Rules; (iii) he was promoted to the position of Chief Administrative Officer on Salary Grade Level 14; (iv) was posted to Nnewi South LGA as Electoral Officer where he supervised the Continuous Voters Registration exercise of 2008/2009. The question which arises is which category of employment known to law is the claimant’s. The defendant has admitted that it is a statutory body constituted under the INEC Act Cap 15 LFN 2004. The INEC Staff Conditions of Service Revised Edition 2007 states in Paragraph 1.01 that “all appointments shall be made on the authority of the Commission as provided in Section 158 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999”. Furthermore, section 160 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended empowers the Commission “to make its own rules or otherwise regulate its own procedure.” The Federal Public Service Rules and the INEC Staff Conditions of Service have both been made pursuant to the powers conferred by the Constitution. I find that the claimant’s contract of service is governed wholly by the provisions of statute and his conditions of service are as contained in the Regulations deriving from statutory provisions. His employment is not only statutory but has constitutional force. I therefore hold that his employment is protected by statute. It is one with statutory flavour. See Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, Olaniyan v University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 599, Iderima v Rivers State Civil Service Commission [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt 951) 378. The defendant in justifying the termination of the claimant’s appointment has alleged that the Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise of 2008/2009 supervised by the claimant in Nnewi South LGA of Anambra State was marred with wrong entries in the register of voters and irregularities resulting in a mix up in the data displayed by the defendant to the Public, a situation which caused her embarrassment. The evidence before the court is that a Panel was set up by the defendant to investigate the irregularities with DW as a member. Its terms of reference were: 1. To investigate the cases of allegations of wrong entries into the data base of the Register of Voters for some LGAs in Anambra State. 2. To establish culpability for the conduct and make appropriate recommendations for sanctions. 3. To recommend measures for preventing future occurrences. The Letter inviting the claimant to meet with the panel is reproduced as follows: MR DENIS OGBU LGA NNEWI SOUTH INVITATION TO THE INVESTIGATION PANEL You are directed to meet with the investigation panel from Abuja on the Continuous Voters Registration of 2008/2009. You are directed to attend with your Assistant Registration Officers. Date: 17th December 2009 Time: 12.00 noon Venue: Conference Hall, INEC State Office, Please endeavour attend and on time. Otti C.E HOD (Operations) For: Resident Electoral Commissioner The Investigation Panel in Paragraph 3.0 of its report stated as follows: The Panel had rigorous interview sessions with selected staff that were in Anambra State at one time or the other since the clean up exercise kicked off. Each interviewee was briefed on the fact finding mission of the panel and asked to give an account of what they know about the wrong entries in the Anambra State Register of Voters. The claimant is listed as Witness 23 in the report and his interview session is reproduced as follows: “I am an Electoral Officer ,Nnewi South LGA of Anambra State. I was posted to the LGA in April 2007 for the Presidential Election. I took over from one Mr Ezeh Ezekiah. The total number of registered voters handed over to me in April 2007 was Fifty Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen (59,814). This figure was for the manual register. The EVR figure I received from operations Department in Awka was Seventy Two Thousand, Six hundred and Forty Nine (72,649). I conducted CVR exercise from inception to 29th September 2009 and registered Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty (4,250). The final Registration figure for the 2010 Gubernatorial election for the LGA is Fifty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Two (57,842). I have seen the 2006/7 registration data in the CVR data for my LGA. I am very surprised that this data was lumped with the CVR. I do not download data generated for the CVR, I bring the laptop to the ICT for downloads. I did not at anytime stand by the ICT staff when downloading because they usually give excuse that there are other laptops fro other LGAs pending or that there is no fuel in the generating set. Throughout 2008, I used one laptop for the CVR Exercise. Later in 2009, due to pressure from the communities, the REC approved the use of three (3) additional machines and an additional printer. Since I was only given one additional printer, I used only one of the additional laptops. I do not know whether the 2006/7 data was purged before the laptops were given to me for the CVR Exercise. I do not know how to purge the data off the system. I did not allow the usage of the machines without my knowledge; I therefore take responsibility for the CVR Exercise.” Some of the findings on the terms of reference are as follows: i. It was observed during the processing that back up sets brought for reprocessing contained mixed up data of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 registrants; a back up set meant for an LGA would contain data from several LGAs. (Sample of processed data is attached as Annexture II ). j. Some of the registers also bore pictures from almanacs, school kids in school uniforms and inanimate objects. (Sample registers as printed in Annexture III ). k. The Resident Electoral Commissioner authorized the use of more than one laptop per LGA contrary to the Commissions directive. l. These additional laptops released to the LGAs for the CVR Exercise on the directive of the REC were not purged of the 2006/2007 data. m. The CVR exercise was extended to the ward level and even beyond in violation of the Commissions directive to limit it to the LGA headquarters. n. The following LGAs were discovered to have the 2006/7 data lumped up with the CVR: i. Anambra East ii Anambra West iii. Awka North iv Dunukofia v. Idemili North vi Njikoka vii Nnewi South viii Nnewi North ix Onitsha North x Orumba North and xi Orumba South o. Though the Electoral Officers denied, we found as a fact that the intensity of the pressure of the Electoral Officers on the ICT Unit made the Head of the unit gather all the data he found, irrespective of when it was generated, and brought same for reprocessing in Abuja. p. That there was insufficient supervision of the Registration Officials by the Electoral Officers. q. There is laxity in the ICT Unit. r. The data were purposely brought for processing knowing fully well that they were 2006/7 data. s. Due to the carelessness and inefficiency of the ICT Unit, the 2006/7 data found its way into the CVR. The Investigation Panel then recommended the termination of the claimant’s employment in accordance with the INEC Conditions of Service for lumping up the 2006/2007 data with the CVR data. The evidence of DW is that the Electoral Officer takes instructions from the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) and that the claimant’s duty is to supervise the registration exercise. DW in cross examination also corroborated the claimant’s evidence that it is the duty of the ICT Unit after the exercise to download the data supplied into the Server. The findings of the Investigatory Panel is that the REC authorized the use of more than one laptop; and due to the carelessness and inefficiency of the ICT Unit, the 2006/2007 data found its way into the CVR exercise. By its own findings, there was no basis for recommending the termination of the claimant’s appointment. I do not find any evidence or proof of wrong doing by the claimant in the course of his duties as the Electoral Officer in charge of Nnewi South LGA during the CVR exercise 2008/2009. He is not responsible for the mix up of the 2006/2007 voters registration data with the CVR data and I so hold. The claimant’s evidence is that after his appearance at the Panel he received a letter of Interdiction and thereafter his appointment was terminated by the defendant. There is no evidence before the court that the claimant was confronted with any specific charges, issued a query by the defendant or offered any opportunity at a disciplinary process to put up a defence. The claimant has complained that in Interdicting him and subsequently terminating his appointment the defendant breached Articles 3.07, 3.10, 3.13, 3.14, 3.16, 3.19 (a), (c), (e), (g), (h), (k) of the INEC Staff Conditions of Service, Section 030302, 030307 (i), (ii), (vi), (vii), (xiii) of the Federal Public Service Rules 2006 and Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. They are reproduced as follows: 3.07 AUTHORITY AND DELEGATION Disciplinary power over employees on grade level 07 and above is vested in the Commission while those on grade level 01 - 06 at the Headquarters is vested in the Secretary in the case of states/FCT, disciplinary power is vested in the Administrative Secretary. Recommendations for disciplinary action in respect of senior staff shall be made to the Commission by the Senior Staff Discipline & Welfare Committee (SSD&WC). In the case of junior staff, recommendations shall be made by the Junior Staff Committee (JSC) to the Secretary or the Administrative Secretary as the case may be. 3. 10 DISCIPLINARY MEASURES In all cases, the fault of the employee shall be brought to his notice through the issuance of a query before final disciplinary action Proven cases of misconduct shall attract any of the following:- (a) Advice (b) Verbal Warning (c) Written Warning (d) Serious Warning (e) Last Warning (f) Retirement (g) Termination (h) Dismissal 3.14 INTERDICTION (a) An employee shall be liable to interdiction where he has :- (1) Been charged with a criminal offence, whether or not connected with the Commission. (II) Been found guilty of serious misconduct. (b) A formal notice of interdiction shall be given to the employee in writing. The notice shall state the reasons for such interdiction and the date it takes effect. The interdicted employee shall be paid half of his monthly emolument from the date of his interdiction pending the determination of his case. (c)An interdicted employee shall keep his department informed of the address at which instructions can be delivered. (d) Where an employee under interdiction is found not guilty he shall be reinstated and receive the balance of his salary. Where it is found undesirable that he should continue in the service of the commission, his appointment shall be determined as appropriate. 3.16 TERMINATION (a) A confirmed employee may have his appointment terminated by the Commission on grounds of general inefficiency provide that he has previously been warned at least twice. The appointment of an employee may be terminated for one single act of grave inefficiency subject to credible investigation report. 3.19 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE An employee may be dismissed/terminated compulsorily retired on the recommendations of appropriate Committee and in accordance with the following disciplinary procedures unless otherwise provided in the Conditions of Service: (a) The Commission shall set up a committee to investigate offence(s) committed by an employee. (b) An employee shall be notified in writing of the offences which action is being taken. (c) An employee shall be called upon to state in writing, prior to the day appointed for the hearing of the case (which they must allow a reasonable interval) any grounds upon which he relies to exculpate himself. (e) An employee shall be informed when his case will be brought before the Committee. He shall be required to appear before it and entitled to call witnesses. Failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the Committee. (g) No documentary evidence shall be used against an employee unless he has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto. (h) Where during the course of the inquiry, further grounds for disciplinary are disclosed and the committee deems it fit to proceed against an employee upon such grounds, the employee shall be furnished with a written statement thereof and of the same steps shall be taken as prescribed in respect of the original grounds. (k) Where witnesses are called to give evidence, the employee shall be entitled to be present to examine the witnesses. 030302- As soon as a superior officer becomes dissatisfied with the behaviour of any officer subordinate to him/her, it shall be his/her duty so to inform the officer in writing giving details of unsatisfactory behaviour and to call upon him/her to submit within a specific time such written representation as he/she may wish to make to exculpate himself/herself from disciplinary action. After considering such written representations as the officer may make within the specified time the superior officer shall decide whether: (a) The officer has exculpated himself/herself in which case, he/she shall be so informed in writing and no further action shall be necessary, or (b) The officer has not exculpated himself/herself but it is considered that he/she should not be punished in which case the appropriate formal letter of advice shall be issued to him/her and he/she shall be required to acknowledge its receipt in writing or (c ) The officer has not exculpated himself/herself and deserves some punishment, in which case Rule 030304 shall apply. 030307- Unless the method of dismissal is otherwise provided for in these Rules, an officer in the Federal Civil Service may be dismissed by the Federal Civil Service Commission only in accordance with this Rule: (I) The officers shall be notified in writing of the ground on which it is proposed to discipline him/her. The query should be precise and to the point. It must relate the circumstances of the offence, the rule and regulation which the officer has broken and the likely penalty. In serious cases which are likely to result in dismissal, the officer should be given access to any such document(s) or report(s) used against him/her and he/she should be asked to state in his/her defence that he/she has been given access to such documents. The officer shall be called upon to state in writing within the period specified in the query any grounds upon which he/she relies to exculpate himself/herself. (II) The query, or preliminary letter, shall be in the format shown in Appendix II. (VI) The officer shall be informed that, on a special day the question of his/her dismissal shall be brought before the board and he/she shall be required to appear before it to defend himself/herself and shall be entitled to call witnesses. His/her failure to appear shall not invalidate the proceedings of the board. (VII) Where witnesses are called by the board to give evidence before it, the officer shall be entitled to put questions to the witnesses and no documentary evidence shall be used against the officer unless he/she has previously been supplied with a copy thereof or given access thereto; (XIII) All disciplinary procedures must commence and be completed within a period of 60 days except where it involves criminal cases. 36 (1)- In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. The defendant has admitted in its pleadings and evidence that pursuant to the report of the Investigation Panel the claimant was placed on Interdiction pending the review and determination of his level of culpability/ involvement in the case. It is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and that there is no burden incumbent on a party to prove facts admitted by the adversary party. See Tijani Jolasun v Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt 1225) 285. I find that the defendant relied as it were on the report of the Investigation Panel; and denying the claimant a fair hearing, rushed to mete out serious disciplinary sanctions. The employer’s duty where a Panel of Inquiry has made out a case against an employee has been succinctly put by the Supreme Court in the case of Alhaji Baba v Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Center [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt 192) 388 at 418, [1991] 2 NSCC 145 at 158 per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC : But once the panel has concluded its inquiry and makes up its mind that any points had been prima facie made out which point to the fault of any person, the employer must first inform such an employee of the points in the case against him and give him the opportunity to refute, explain or contradict them or otherwise exculpate himself by making any representations or defence thereto before the employer can lawfully use those points as bases for dispensing with his services. Where those points amount to crime, the case must be reported to the police for investigation and possible prosecution. I find that without complying with the mandatory provisions of Articles 3.10, 3.14, 3.16, 3.19 of the INEC Staff Conditions of Service, Section 030302, 030307 (i), (ii), (vi), (vii) and (xiii) of the Federal Public Service Rules the defendant placed the claimant on Interdiction when he was not charged with a criminal offence or found guilty of serious misconduct and then proceeded to terminate his employment. I hold that the defendant was in breach of the above mandatory provisions of the claimant’s contract of employment and section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution when it terminated the claimant’s employment. The defendant is a Federal Government statutory body and must carry out its activities in line with its governing laws, rules, regulations and procedures. The rules regulating discipline and the termination of the claimant’s employment must be strictly complied with, his employment being one with statutory flavour. Consequently, I hold that the termination of the claimant’s appointment by the defendant is null and void and of no effect. He is entitled to automatic reinstatement. He is reinstated into the service immediately as Chief Administrative Officer with all the rights and privileges he is entitled to as a Grade Level 14 Officer and with no loss of seniority. See Shitta-Bey v Federal Public Service Commission supra, Iderima v Rivers State Civil Service Commission supra, Olatunbosun v NISER Council [1983] 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25. For all the reasons given above, I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. The Interdiction and subsequent Termination of the claimant’s appointment was done in breach of the parties applicable conditions of service and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. 2. The Termination of the claimant’s appointment as Chief Administrative Officer on Grade Level 14 with the designation of Electoral Officer is null and void. It is of no effect and is hereby set aside. 3. The claimant is reinstated into the service immediately as Chief Administrative Officer with all the attendant rights and privileges of his Grade Level and with no loss of seniority. 4. The defendant is ordered to immediately release and pay the claimant his emoluments/ allowances and other entitlements due to him from 1st January 2010. I award in favour of the claimant cost of N50,000.00 to be paid by the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. ---------------------------------------- Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae