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 Assistant Director on Salary Grade Level 15, with the designation of Electoral Officer in the defendant Commission 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/ nullifying the said order Terminating the plaintiffs appointment as Assistant Director on Salary Grade Level 15, contained in the commission’s letter of 3rd February 2011 reference No. HQ/AN/C.012/126. 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, in that office, until his 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 Third Alteration Act 2011 which conferred jurisdiction on this court. The defendant entered appearance and filed its statement of defence, name of witness, witness statement on oath and copies of documents on the 23rd November 2012. The claimant’s reply to the statement of defence was filed on the 10th December 2012. The parties joined issues and the matter went to trial. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he holds a B.SC and a Masters Degree in Public Administration with Certificate of Commendation and Membership of various Bodies. That by the defendant’s letter dated 26th June 1989, he was appointed Administrative Officer on Salary Grade Level 09 and the appointment was confirmed by letter dated 15th September 1998. The claimant pleaded that by the defendant’s letter dated 21/12 96 he was promoted to the post of Principal Personnel Officer and by another letter dated 12/2/99 to the post of ACPO. He pleaded that by the defendant’s letter dated 6th October 2005, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Director Grade Level 15 with effect from January 2005 on deferred financial benefits from 1st January 2006. The claimant pleaded that he holds various training certificates including the 1998 Joint Commonwealth Secretariat /INEC Training Certificate on integrity in Electoral Process. The claimant pleaded 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. 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. The claimant pleaded that between July 1989 and October 2004 he was deployed in Anambra State but in November 2004 he was transferred to Ogun State INEC office where he served as Electoral officer Ijebu East LGA. He pleaded that during the 2006/2007 voters registration exercise he remained at his post in Ijebu East for the conduct of the exercise and on the 4th April 2007 he was transferred back to Anambra State INEC and deployed to the Administrative Department at the State Headquarters Office only to be later on the 5th December 2008 posted to Onitsha North LGA as Electoral Officer. He pleaded that he performed his official duties as Electoral Officer for Onitsha North LGA diligently and creditably during the Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise. That his duties which were administrative in nature, ensuring that all the materials for the exercise are collected from the Awka Head office and made available to the Registration Officers. Thereafter, supervising the Registration Officers and whenever the DDC Machine is full, ensure that the data is sent to the ICT Unit at Awka for downloading of the data from the machine and repairs where necessary. The claimant pleaded that all Technical matters concerning the DDC machine, downloading of data generated from the field is handled by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department which is a specialized Unit. He pleaded that Electoral Officers work under the directives of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for the State and all matters of logistics including the use of equipment for the Registration exercises are done in strict compliance with his instructions. He pleaded that no question was raised against the quality of the work throughout the conduct of the exercises neither was the data submitted to the ICT at any point queried during the period of the CVR processes up until 29th September 2009 or even subsequently on any issue of a mix up in the data collated in that exercise raised by either the State or Abuja visiting ICT Personnel. He pleaded that during the public display of the continuous voters register from 31st October – 9th November 2009, there were no complaints raised; and that in December 2009, all the Electoral Officers in Anambra State were informed that they were expected to appear before Panel of Inquiry on the conduct of the CVR exercise. He pleaded that he was interviewed by the Panel and after viewing the voter registration pictures and data his work was commended by the Panel. That he was then informed that there was a mix up of the 2006/2007 registration data and the 2009 CVR exercise to which he replied that such a complaint had not been brought to his knowledge and that the office manual continuous voters register did not contain any mix up. He pleaded that he was for the first time shown a clip containing a mix up of the registration data; and the Chairman sought his assistance in locating where the errors came from. The claimant pleaded that he told the Panel that he was not in Anambra State when the 2006/2007 voter registration was compiled and that it is for the staff of the ICT Department who have exclusive control and custody of the CVR data and the 2006/2007 data to assist the Panel Inquiry. He pleaded that he was not confronted with any default in the performance of his duties or any matter of his personal dereliction nor was he ever queried in any manner in the 22 years of service rendered to the defendant. That thereafter, he received a letter from the Commission placing him on Interdiction for unexplained reasons; in response to which he sent various petitions in compliance with the applicable conditions of service pleading for a review or an opportunity for fair hearing thereto. The claimant pleaded that no further action or query was ever issued to him by the defendant and then on the 17th February 2011, he received a letter of termination of his appointment dated 3rd February 2011. He pleaded that he demanded a withdrawal of the said letter of termination through his counsels letter to the defendant dated 22nd February 2011 which the defendant failed to do. That his 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 10th December 2012 which he adopted. They were in the exact terms of the pleadings. Under cross examination, the claimant said he was the Electoral Officer that supervised the 2008 – 2009 Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise in Onitsha North Local Government Area (LGA). He told the court that the REC Chief Roland Uwa approved two DDC Machines for use in the conduct of the exercise but one was faulty and so only one machine was used during the exercise. The claimant said he was not told the CVR exercise was to be carried out only in the Local Government Headquarters. He said there was no circular to that effect. He said all the directives on how to conduct the CVR exercise came from the REC and his directives were carried out. The claimant said it was not his duty to download the DDC Machine. He said there was no mix up in the conduct of the CVR in Onitsha North which he supervised. He said he was invited to appear before the Panel with the two Assist Registration Officers who actually conducted the registration but that he did not know why he was asked to appear. The claimant told the court that he was not confronted with anything by the Panel and was not aware about the Panel report which was shrouded in secrecy. He said he was interdicted without being told the reason why he was interdicted. He told the court that as an Assistant Director, he should be told the reason for the interdiction. He then closed his case. The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimant is a confirmed staff of the defendant and promoted to the position of Assistant Director before the termination of his appointment. The defendant pleaded that the claimant was the Electoral Officer in Charge of Onitsha North LGA during the Continuous Voters Registration (CVR) exercise of 2008/2009 and was saddled with the responsibility of conducting, supervising and ensuring that the CVR exercise was carried out diligently from the point of registration up to the point of downloading of data from the DDC Machines. The defendant pleaded that the back up sets brought for reprocessing contained mixed up data of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 registrants; some registrants bore pictures from almanacs, school children in uniform, inanimate objects and data from several Local Government Areas (LGA). The defendant pleaded that 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. It pleaded that as a result, it constituted a five man Panel of Inquiry to investigate the conduct of the CVR exercise in some LGA in Anambra State and that the claimant was invited to the Panel and heard concerning the mix up of the CVR exercise on the 17th December 2009. That after concluding the Inquiry, a report was submitted indicting the claimant and some others. The defendant pleaded that after an extensive deliberation on the report, the claimant was placed on Interdiction pending the review and determination of the level of culpability of the claimant. That in view of the appeal of the claimant for a review of its decision, it referred the case to the Senior Staff Welfare and Disciplinary Committee for consideration and recommendation. The defendant pleaded that at its meeting of 15th December 2010, it deliberated on the disciplinary cases of wrong entries in the voters register in some LGAs in Anambra State and subsequently approved the termination of the appointment of the claimant and communicated same to him in writing. That the claimant was given adequate time and opportunity to present his case in accordance with the INEC Staff Conditions of Service 2007 and the Public Service Rules 2006. It pleaded that the termination of the claimant’s employment was proper and in accordance with the defendant’s Conditions of Service. The defendant called one witness Engr E.T.Akem (DW). His examination in chief was by witness statement on oath sworn to on the 23rd November 2012 which he adopted. It was in terms of the pleadings. DW told the court that the function of an Electoral Officer is to collect data and supervise the field. That his duty is to gather the information through his staff and return the data back to the INEC office at Awka. DW said the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) issues the DDC Machine to the Electoral Officer and that the use of the DDC Machines must be in accordance with the orders of the REC. DW told the court that the claimant was not the Electoral Officer in Onitsha North during the 2006/2007 registration exercise, that he became electoral Officer in Onitsha North on the 5th December 2008. DW said that in carrying out the exercise all that is given to the Electoral Officers are materials for a manual register and DDC machines (laptops). That after capturing the details at the field, the Electoral Officer submits the DDC machine to the ICT Unit. DW told the court that the ICT Unit captures the data in the machine and feeds it to the server. He said the Electoral Officer has no access to the server. That by this process, the ICT Unit blends the new data captured in the 2008/2009 CVR with the existing register of 2006/2007. DW informed the court that the ICT unit is a specialized Unit and that it is the blend of the CVR exercise and the existing register made by the ICT Unit that forms the voters register given to the Electoral Officers to be used for the elections. DW told the court that the schedule of the Electoral Officers does not include this collation. DW informed the court that there was in existence a voters’ register which was used in the 2007 elections. DW said that he is aware the data collected by the claimant was displayed for public viewing between 31/10/2009 to 09/11/2009 but is not aware that there were any complaints by members of the public in respect of the display. DW told the court that the complaint against the claimant is that there is a mixture of the 2006/2007 existing register with the 2008/2009 exercise. He said he was a member of the Panel of Inquiry which interviewed the ICT staff and all those who had a responsibility. He admitted that the letter inviting the claimant did not state any complaint against him. DW told the court that if there is any mix up in the Electoral Officers responsibilities, it must also be found on the laptop. DW told the court that the Panel did not access the laptop but relied only on what the ICT gave. DW stated that the Electoral Officers in the States take their instructions from the REC. He admitted that the REC did not appear before the Panel and did not ascertain what instructions he gave the Electoral Officers. He said it was not to his knowledge that the chairman had any interface with the REC. DW told the court that it is not to his knowledge the claimant was invited to the Senior Staff Welfare and Disciplinary Committee or that he appeared before any other body. He agreed that an Electoral Officer is a very Senior Officer of the defendant who should be queried if he has done something wrong. The defendant then closed its case. The parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The defendant’s final address is dated 17th April 2013 and filed same day. The claimant’s final address is dated5th May 2013 and filed on 5th June 2013. The defendant’s reply on point of law is dated 13th June 2013 and filed same day. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted three issues for determination: a. Whether the claimant’s appointment with the defendant’s has any statutory flavour. b. Whether the termination of the claimant appointment was regular. c. Whether the claimant is entitled to any of the claims. He submitted that the claimant’s appointment is purely one of master and servant. He submitted that the claimant’s position at point of entry was clerical officer, while the point of exit as Electoral Officer are not mentioned in the statute creating the defendant and so his appointment is not one with statutory flavour. He submitted that it is not correct in law to assume that the claimant’s appointment has statutory flavour because the condition of service was made pursuant to the Act which created the defendant. He cited Imoloame v W.A.E.C [1992] 11-12 SCNJ 121 at 134, First Bank Of Nigeria v BAM [2011] All FWLR [Pt 599]1175, Oyetoki v NIPOST [2010] All FWLR (Pt 504)1572 at 1586, Iderima v R.S.C.S.C [2005] All FWLR (pt 285) 432, Omojuigbe V NIPOST [2010] All FWLR (Pt 543) 1907 at 1960. He submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment is not wrongful because it was done in exercise of the defendant’s power to terminate the claimant’s appointment for the offence of serious misconduct citing Annam v B.S.J.S.C [2006] All FWLR (Pt 296) 844, Raji v University of Ilorin [2008] All FWLR (Pt 435) 1833 at 1851, L.R.C.I v Ndefoh [1997] NWLR (Pt 491) 72, Chukwuma v SPDC [1993] 5 SCNJ 1 at 50. He argued that the claimant was given adequate time to present his case by the Panel before his appointment was interdicted and subsequently terminated. He submitted that facts admitted need not be proved citing Oseni v Bajulu [2010] All FWLR (Pt 511) 813, Orji v Dorje Textile Mills [2010] All FWLR (Pt 519) 999. Learned counsel submitted that the INEC Staff Conditions of Service and the Public Service Rules were not tendered in evidence by the claimant and are not before the court to act on citing Udeagha v Omegara [2010] All FWLR (Pt 542) 1785 . He submitted that the claimant is not entitled to reinstatement or specific performance as no servant can be imposed on an unwilling master. That even if the termination is wrongful, he is only entitled to damages. He argued that the fact that the termination was retroactive does not nullify it. He cited Ilodiba v N.C.C. [1997] 7 SCNJ 77at 92, First Bank of Nigeria v Bam supra, Oyetoki v NIPOST supra, Iderima v RSCSC supra, Chukwumah v Shell supra. He then urged the court to dismissthe suit for lacking in merit. The learned SAN framed two issues for determination as follows: i. Whether the claimant’s appointment with the defendant has any statutory flavour? ii. Whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimant ought to be entitled to the reliefs sought. He submitted that from the pleadings exchanged by the parties, the defendant accepts its statutory character but appears to be contending that it does not know under which rules and regulations it operates. He submitted that for the defence to raise an issue of fact, there must be a proper traverse and not a general traverse citing Lewis Peat v Akhimien [1976] 7 SC 167, Eunice Aguocha v Elechi Aguocha (1986) $ NWLR (Pt 37) 566, Essien v Effanga [2012] 40 WRN 133. He referred to section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended for the meaning of Public Service of the Federation, Chapter 1 Regulation 010101 for the identification and description of Officers of the Public Service of the Federation; and Section 1 Chapter 16 of the Federal Government Public Service Rules for the application of the Public Service Rules to Federal Government Parastatals; Section 10 (3) of the INEC Act 1999 and Regulation 1.01 of the INEC Staff Conditions Of Service. He submitted that the claimant’s contract of service is governed wholly by the provisions of Statute and the conditions of service are as contained in the Regulations deriving from statutory provisions. He cited Shitta-Bey v Federal Civil Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589, Olaniyan v University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 599. The learned SAN submitted that all the required component pieces of evidence relating to the claimants appointment, status, service details and the applicable operative staff conditions of service were filed, exchanged and adopted in the claimant’s written statements on oath which constitutes the testimony of the party along with the exhibits relied upon under the present disposition in the Rules of this court without more citing Hon Barr. Etene v Hon Savior Nyong & Ors [2012] 37WRN 113. He submitted that the court will be entitled to call in aid or use for purposes of reaching a determination all processes filed. That furthermore, the court is entitled to look at any document in its file while writing its judgement despite the fact that the document was not tendered and admitted at the trial. He referred to Jimoh v Ayandoye [2012] 26 WRN 32, Oyewole v Akande [2009] 38 WRN 1, Agbassi v Ebikorefe [1997] 4 NWLR (Pt 502)630 at 648 It was the submission of the learned SAN that from the report of the Panel of Inquiry, no wrong doing has been attributed to the claimant or ant of the Electoral Officers but rather to the ICT Unit. He referred to sections 5, 7 and 9 of the Evidence Act 2011 for the proof of facts in issue. He submitted that the conditions of service rules and regulations are binding on both the claimant and the defendant equally citing D.A.Nig Alep Ltd v Oluwadare [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt 1033) 336. He argued that the defendant did not comply with the rules and regulations and denied the claimant a fair hearing throughout the course leading to his termination. He submitted that in consequence, the termination ought to be pronounced null and void and of no effect whatsoever. He urged the court to make an order of reinstatement of the claimant 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 RSCSC supra,Gov Kwara State v Alhaji Ojibara & Ors [2006] 11-12 SC 140 at 150. Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the defendant submitted that the cases cited by the claimant’s counsel are distinguishable from this case. He submitted that there is no procedure for employment and discipline in the Electoral Act 2010. That the INEC Staff Conditions of service was not made pursuant to the Electoral Act or any law at all and so does not fall under section 122 of the Evidence Act. He urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, written submissions and authorities cited. I will adopt the two issues framed by the learned SAN as the issues for determination in this judgement as it captures the position of both parties. 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; (iii) he was promoted to the position of Assistant Director on Salary Grade Level 15; (iv) was posted to Onitsha North Local Government Area on 5th December 2008 as Electoral Officer where he supervised the Continuous Voters Registration exercise of 2008/2009. The defendant has denied that the claimant’s employment is one with statutory flavour and that his condition of service is governed by the Federal Public Service Rules. It submitted that the Federal Public Service Rules and the INEC Staff Conditions of Service were not tendered in evidence. It has also submitted that the INEC Staff Conditions of Service was not made under the Electoral Act or any law. The question which then arises is which category of employment known to law is the claimant’s. The claimant has in Paragraph 1 of his statement of claim pleaded that the Federal Public Service Rules, the INEC Staff Conditions of Service and the Pension Reform Act 2004 are applicable to him. There is no specific traverse of these facts by the defendant to put it in issue. I hold that the general traverse by the defendant is insufficient and as such the defendant has not joined issues with the claimant on these facts. See Lewis Peat v Akhimien [1976] 7 SC 167. From the pleadings exchanged by the parties, the defendant accepts its statutory character but is contending that it does not know under which rules and regulations it operates. Now, Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended defines the meaning of Public Service of the Federation, Chapter 1 Regulation 010101 of the Public Service Rules identifies and describes Officers of the Public Service of the Federation; Section 1 Chapter 16 is the application of the Public Service Rules to Federal Government Parastatals; and authority for appointment is pursuant to Section 10 (3) of the INEC Act 1999 and Regulation 1.01 of the INEC Staff Conditions Of Service. I hold that the claimant’s contract of service is governed wholly by the provisions of Statute and the conditions of service are as contained in the Regulations deriving from Statutory provisions. See Shitta-Bey v Federal Civil Service Commission [1981] 1 SC 40, Idoniboye-Obu v NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt 805) 589, Olaniyan v University of Lagos [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt 9) 599. There is no requirement for statutory provisions to be tendered as the court will take judicial notice of same. The INEC Staff Conditions of Service and the Federal Public Service Rules were frontloaded, and served on the defendant with no objection raised. In any event, a court is entitled to look at any document in its file while writing its judgement despite the fact that the document was not tendered and admitted at the trial. See Akinola v VC University of Ilorin [2004] 11 NWLR (Pt 885) 616, Agbaisi v Ebikerefe [1997] 4 NWLR (Pt 502) 630, Jimoh v Ayandoye [2012] 26 WRN 32. Contrary to the defendant’s counsel submission that the claimant was on the onset appointed as a clerical officer, his letter of appointment states that he was appointed “as an Administrative Officer on Salary Grade Level 09; other conditions of your appointment will be as applicable in the Federal Civil Service”. This without more is evidence that his employment is governed by the Federal Public Service Rules and I so hold. The claimant is also in the established Pensionable Cadre. 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. In spite of these clear statutory provisions, the defendant’s counsel argues that the INEC Staff Conditions of Service was not made under any law. I find that the claimant’s 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 Onitsha North 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 HENRY MBONU LGA ONITSHA NORTH 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 24 in the report and his interview session is reproduced as follows: “I am an Electoral Officer of Onitsha North LGA of Anambra State. I assumed duty as Electoral Officer of the LGA in January 2009. I was transferred from Anambra to Ogun State in 2004. In 2007, I was brought back to Anambra State without applying for the transfer. The redeployment came as a surprise. All the Electoral Officers that participated in the 2003 Elections in Anambra State, apart from the women, were transferred. About seven (7) of these Electoral Officers were redeployed back few days to the 2007 elections. We did not request for the transfer back to Anambra State, it came to us as a surprise, especially since most of us were Electoral Officers in our respective States and preparing for the Elections there. The total number of registered voters in Onitsha North LGA for the 2007 General Elections was Eighty One Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Seven (81,377). When I took over in January 2009, there was no record of any CVR. My predecessor informed me that no laptop was assigned to the LGA for CVR Exercise. In June 2009, two laptops were approved and released to me for the CVR Exercise in my LGA. It is correct that the CVR Exercise started in June 2009 in my LGA. I commenced the Exercise with one laptop because the other was faulty. As at 28/09/2009, I had registered Two Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Nine (2,149) voters for the CVR. The combined total of 2006/7 Electronic Voters Register (EVR), CVR and the display figures is Eighty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Four (82,974) registered voters for the 2010 Gubernational Election for Onitsha North LGA. I have seen the 2006/7 data lumped up with the CVR data for my LGA and I am surprised. I do not know how this occurred. I did not complain that my CVR data was not processed. I usually brought the machine to the ICT Unit for downloading. Each time I brought the laptop, the ICT unit gave me interval of two to three days before downloading the data. I did not know whether the laptops were purged before they were released to us for the CVR Exercise. I lack the expertise to know if data was still resident in the laptops meant for the field. I did not receive any training for registration. I made a case for training thrice to the REC but to no avail. I made effort to be present during the field work especially because of the peculiarities of Onitsha bordering on violence. My Registration Officer lacked the necessary expertise because we started the CVR Exercise late.” 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 the claimant before the court which has been corroborated by DW is that he takes instructions from the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC). DW corroborated the claimant’s testimony that his duty as Electoral Officer is to collect the DDC Machine from the ICT Unit at Awka, hand it over to the registration officers and supervise the registration exercise. The registration officers register new registrants both manually and with the DDC machines. When the DDC Machine is full, he takes it back to the ICT Unit Awka for downloading. 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 and merge the existing register with the supplementary register into one composite voter’s registration list. DW also corroborated the claimant’s evidence that the data was in the custody, control and possession of the ICT Unit. The findings of the Investigatory Panel is that 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 Onitsha North 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 issued a query by the defendant or asked to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. 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 an Assistant Director with all the rights and privileges he is entitled to as a Grade Level 15 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 Assistant Director on Grade Level 15 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 an Assistant Director 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