From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The legal moves by a dismissed officer of the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS), Daniel Makolo, to sack the Comptroller-General of Immigration, Muhammad Babandede, has failed at the National Industrial Court.
Makolo had in his suit which was thrown out by the industrial court challenged the decision by President Muhammadu Buhari to extend the tenure of Babandede as the Comptroller-General of Immigration (CGI).
The Abuja-based lawyer in his suit listed the Minister of Interior; the Director/Secretary of the Civil Defence, Correctional, Fire and Immigration Services Board (CDCFIB); Babandede; the NIS; the Head of Service of the Federation (HOSF), Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC); the National Security Adviser (NSA); the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as defendants.
He had among others, prayed the court to determine whether Babandede, who was recruited into the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS) on September 13, 1985, could, under any guise, lawfully remain in office beyond September 12, 2020, in the face of the provisions of the Public Service Rules (PSRs) 100238 and 020810 made pursuant to sections 160, 169 and 172 of the Constitution and sections 2 and 3 of the NIS Act 2015.
The plaintiff contended that since becoming the CGI, strictly applied the Public Service Rules (PSRs) 100238 and 020810, which provides the mandatory retirement ages and tenure of service for public officers, but that it is unjust that he is now unwilling to apply the same rules to himself.
He further submitted that Babandede ought to observe the provisions of the PSRs 100238 and 020810 like other civil servants employed at the same time with him in 1985 who have since vacated office in compliance with the rules.
He added that by the provisions of the PSRs, Babandede ought to proceed on the mandatory retirement leave on June 13, 2020, preparatory to his formal exit from service on September 12, 2020, and that having ignored the provisions, all his actions, including the disbursement of funds are illegal, and he should be compelled to make a refund.
‘The refusal, failure and neglect of the fourth defendant to proceed on retirement fuels the speculation that his failure to proceed on his pre-retirement leave is in his bid to cover his corrupt practices and those of his benefactors and protégé,’ Makolo added.
He prayed the court to declare among others, that no known laws allow the president, either acting by himself or through any agency of government, to extend the period of service of a public officer with statutory tenure.
But in their preliminary objections challenging the suit, counsel to the respondents, Mallam J.A.Adamu, a Deputy Director /Legal Adviser, Nigeria Immigration Service with Collins Obilor, urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the requisite locus standing to file the action.
The defence lawyers argued that the plaintiff has no legal right over the subject matter of the suit and accordingly lack the requisite locus standi to initiate and maintain the suit as constituted and conceived.
That the plaintiff did not satisfy the mandatory condition precedent of law to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Besides, it was the contention of the respondents that the substance of the plaintiff case was purely an academic hypothetical issue that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain.
The defence team accordingly urged the court to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff has failed to show the injury he stands to suffer on account of the act complained of.
Delivering her judgment, Justice Olufunke Anuwe, agreed with the respondents that the plaintiff, “lacked the requisite locus standi (the legal right) to file this suit.”
In upholding the preliminary objection, Justice Anuwe held that Makolo failed to show how the retention of Babandede by President Buhari negatively affected his interests or rights.
She noted that the plaintiff did no show in any way how Babandede’s continued stay in office caused him any injury, affected his interest or his rights.
She held that having found that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to have instituted the suit, it meant that the suit was dead on arrival.
Justice Anuwe proceeded to dismiss the suit without hearing it on merit.