Court to hear suit on dissolution of Ogun Judicial Commission Dec 4

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Ibadan
Division, has fixed December 4 to hear a suit challenging Governor
Dapo Abiodun’s dissolution of the state Judicial Service Commission
(JSC).

Justice Dele Peters fixed the date after taking submissions from
the parties.

The suit, filed by a former member of the Commission, Mr Abayomi
Omoyinmi, is marked NICN/AB/09/2019.

The first to fourth defendants are the government, the governor,
the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice and House of
Assembly.

When the suit came up for hearing, claimant’s counsel, George
Oyeniyi, told the court that the government on October 31 okayed
the appointment of new members for the JSC.

He claimed that they were sworn in on November 4, despite the
suit challenging their appointment.

Asked by the court if the defendants had responded to the
processes served on them, a Chief State Counsel from the Ministry
of Justice, Abeokuta, S. A. Omotola said: “No. But we would do the
needful”.

Justice Peters, thereafter, adjourned till December 4 for
hearing of pending applications.

In its motion on notice, the claimant is asking the court for an
order directing the defendants to maintain status quo on JSC’s
membership until the determination of the originating summons.

He prayed the court to order an interlocutory injunction
restraining the defendants/respondents from submitting or
presenting any person for appointment as member of the commission
and from assuming office of or performing the functions and or
duties as JSC pending the hearing and determination of the
originating summons.

He sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the
second and fourth defendants from taking any steps or proceedings
towards or in pursuance of the filling of the offices of member of
the commission pending the hearing and determination of the
suit.

He also prayed the court for an order of interlocutory
injunction restraining the second and fourth defendants, their
agents, officers and or any person, howsoever, described from
appointing, presenting any person for appointment as member of the
commission pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Omoyinmi, through his counsel, Oyeniyi, raised six issues for
determination by the court in its originating motion, supported
with a 46-point affidavit.

He asked the court to determine whether the second and fourth
defendants, have the power to dissolve the JSC contrary to the
provisions of Section 201 of the constitution and whether it is
legal for the second defendant to order the claimant to be locked
out of their offices or prevented from gaining access to same from
June 25 till date pursuant to purported resolution of the fourth
defendant; whether the rationale and ground relied on by the fourth
defendants in its resolution of May 31, calling for the dissolution
of chairmen and board of statutory and non-statutory boards and
commissions in the state is in tandem with Section 201 of the
constitution and as such not ultra vires, illegal, unlawful, null
and void and of no effect.

The claimant asked the court to determine whether by the
provisions of section 199(1)(C) of the 1999 Constitution, as
amended, the purported dissolution of the commission and removal of
the claimant and other members from their respective offices
through a resolution purportedly passed by the fourth defendant
sometime on May 31 is proper, legal lawful and in accordance with
the provisions of relevant laws of the state and the Constitution;
whether the dissolution and purported termination of the claimants
and other members was not a violation of the provisions of Section
197 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and ultra vires.

He asked the court to determine whether the claimant is not
entitled to be paid his remunerations up till the date his tenure
of office will lawfully expire in line with section 199 (1) (C) of
the Constitution.

He therefore asked the court restrain the defendants from
treating the claimant’s appointment as having ended last May and/or
appointing other persons to replace them; and directing the
defendants to effect immediate payment of the salaries leave
allowances/bonus, among others.

In the affidavit in support of the motion, the claimant averred
that contrary to the fourth defendant’s assertion that the tenure
of office of the claimant has come to an end last May, the tenure
of office is statutory and fixed for five years.

He averred that that himself and other members are entitled to
severance allowance, once in every four years, which by law is 300
per cent of their basic salary.

He averred that he served the state diligently and having
abandoned his private job for the call for service should entitled
to all dues.

He stated that the allegation by the fourth defendants that
chairmen and members of statutory and non-statutory boards and
commissions received their severance allowances from the last
administration could not be substantiated.