The Presiding Judge, National Industrial Court sitting in Uyo,
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Mahmood Namtari has ordered Inspector
General of Police and the Police Service Commission to promote
Reuben Micheal to the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police
(ASP) II with effect from 2011 and pay him all his financial
entitlements and benefits within 90 days.
The court held that Reuben Micheal has not only earned his
promotion but also brought the facts within the exceptions of the
law.
The Claimant who was enlisted in the Nigeria Police Force as a
Police Constable and is currently a Police Inspector, posited that
having embarked on study leave on the approval of the Inspector
General of Police and obtained his Degree certificate, wrote and
passed ASCON ASP Examination, that he is entitled to promotion or
upgrade to the rank of ASP and all efforts to make the IGP and
Police Service Commission to do the needful proved abortive.
The Claimant also feels that the period of four years study
leaves without pay would be counted and added up to his 35 five
years in service which indeed will work as an injustice on him and
by now he would have been a Superintendent of Police (SP) going by
Public Service Rules.
The Claimant also noted that as a general rule, promotion from
one level or position in an organization to another is not a right
but a privilege; but submitted that there is no general rule
without exception urged the Court to accept the unchallenged and
un-controverted evidence placed before it that the defendants are
presumed to have admitted the case made against them.
However, the Defendants did not enter any formal appearance nor
defence and did not have any legal representation throughout the
hearing of the case in spite of been put on notice at every
turn.
Delivering the Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Namtari
held that Lack of evidence or defence does not guarantee automatic
victory to the claimant since the evidence does not become credible
merely because it is unchallenged.
“On the state of documentary evidence and the law, I have no
hesitation in finding and holding that the Claimant has not only
earned his promotion but also brought the facts within the
exceptions of the law. A look at the evidence will support this
stance.
The court declared the Defendants’ refusal to promote the
Claimant as vindictive, mala fide, and so qualifies as unfair
labour practice.