Dr Abdulwahab Oyedokun, the Director of Legal Services, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) on Monday, told the National Industrial Court that the dismissal of Mr Yisa Usman, a deputy director in the board, followed due process.
Oyedokun told Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae while being cross examined by Usman’s lawyer, Mallam Mohammed Shuaibu, in a suit instituted against JAMB over his client’s alleged unlawful dismissal.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Usman had filed a N150 million suit against JAMB in suit marked: NICN/ABJ/266/2023 over alleged unlawful dismissal.
The claimant alleged that the composition of the Board’s Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee that was set up to dismiss him was wholly irregular, illegal, null and void for failure to comply with Article 3.5.4 of the Board’s Staff Manual and Conditions of Service.
The claimant had argued that his right to fair hearing could not have been guaranteed before the committee as the composition did not reflect what was stipulated in relevant laws of public service.
He had urged the court to hold that “the claimant’s purported dismissal by the defendant( JAMB) without the consideration of the Committee’s Report by the defendant’s board is unlawful, illegal null and void.”
He alleged that the composition of the committee was largely comprised of board’s registrar and other directors who were beneficiaries of alleged infractions in JAMB exposed by him.
The claimant sought an order reinstating him “to his position with full entitlements, benefits and perks due to him by virtue of his position” as well as an an order granting him all the salaries, allowances, perks due to him or that would have been due to him but for the purported dismissal.
Earlier when the matter was called, counsel to JAMB, Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, led Oyedokun in evidence as sole defence witness (DW).
The senior lawyer, through the DW, tendered the witness statement on oath, dated March 11, 2024, as evidence.
Also, Owonikoko sought to tender 33 documents attached to the witness statement on oath as evidence before the court.
However, Shuaibu, who did not oppose the application, said this would be subject to the claimant’s rights to raise any issue in the final written address.
The judge consequently admitted the 33 documents in evidence and marked them as Exhibits D-1 to D-33 respectively.
“The documents are admitted in evidence subject to the claimant’s rights to raise any issue at written address,” she ruled.
The witness made reference to the 33 certified documents in the defence list of evidence which showed the timeline of the board’s probe of Usman leading to his dismissal.
The documents he identified in open court included the report of the disciplinary committee, conveyance of approval of the decision of the disciplinary committee by the Federal Ministry of Education to JAMB, and clearance/exoneration letters from government bodies which investigated the claimant’s various petitions against the registrar and JAMB.
Others included the Report of Bureau of Public Procurement, a copy of query issued to Usman, promotion letters issued to Usman, a copy of his reply to the query, his alleged refusal to handover official password, conclusion of investigation,
report of the JAMB Directorate Disciplinary Committee forwarded to Minister of Education and a copy of the six count charge instituted by FRN against Usman at Federal High Court in Abuja.
These also included an invitation letter from ICPC inviting Usman and two others, letter from Usman dated 6 June, 2022 addressed to registrar, e-mail message from Usman to the registrar dated March 2022, Office of Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance on the report of investigation conducted at the instance of Mr Usman; email and letter from Usman which title: Re: Invitation to Appear Before Disciplinary Committee, among others.
Under cross-examination, the claimant’s lawyer, Mohammed Shuaibu, asked the witness if he was aware that in Chapter 9 of the JAMB Staff Manual, it states that the constitution of the disciplinary committee that can try the calibre of staff as a deputy director must comprise of all the directors of JAMB.
The witness, though agreed with Shaibu on the composition which must reflect the Federal Character Principles based on equity and fairness, he however said that a circular approved by the governing board supercedes the provision.
The witness insisted that contrary to the position of the claimant that only directors could determine his fate, the management of JAMB “has power to constitute disciplinary committee.”
He maintained that the power to discipline or dismiss the claimant was within the powers of the board which is enshrined in its established Act.
The witness told the court that the dismissal of the claimant over infractions in public service was not done in bad faith neither was it done unlawfully.
He highlighted that Usman had been dismissed on July 3, 2023, while the court case against him by the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) was instituted on Jan.16, 2024.
“I put it to you that the constitution of the disciplinary committee was wrong as it was not in accordance with laid down procedure, ” the claimant’s lawyer asked the witness.
“The constitution of the committee is in order,” the witness responded.
When the witness was asked if the allegations leading to Usman’s dismissal was at any time referred to his head of department, Oyedokun responded in the affirmative.
“Are you aware that under the Public Service Rules, the power to dismiss or discipline public servants lies with the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC),” Shuaibu asked.
“That relates to those in the core ministries. What I am saying is that those within parastatals have laws that govern them. They are governed by the established Act,” the witness responded.
“I put it to you that the ministry that sanctioned the claimant and approved his dismissal has no power to do that?” Shuaibu asked.
“That is not correct my lord,” Oyedokun responded.
“I put it to you that the constitution of the committee was wrong because it was not in accordance with laid down protocol,” the lawyer said.
“The committee was properly constituted my lord,” the witness said.
When Shuaibu told the witness that the two representatives from the Federal Ministry of Education in the disciplinary committee were not supposed to be part of the panel, Oyedokun said they were supposed to be part of the committee being the representatives of the supervising ministry.
The witness told the court that the JAMB Registrar, Prof. ishaq Oloyede, the director of Finance and Account and Mabel Agbebaku, among others, recused themselves from the disciplinary committee because of Usman’s petitions against them and in order to ensure fair hearing.
After the witness testimony, Owonikoko announced the closure of JAMB’s defence in the matter.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae consequently adjourned the matter until May 28, 2025 for adoption of final written addresses by the parties.(NAN)
