A Federal High Court Judge, Hon. Justice A.R. Mohammed has ruled against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over the publication in PUNCH Newspaper of 28/12/2017.

A former member of the House of Representatives, Hon Onamusi Onadeko through his counsel WAHAB TOYE & CO in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/43/2018 sought the leave of the Court for the following reliefs:-

(i) A Declaration that the 1st plaintiff, Hon. Onamusi Onadeko as a Senior Legislative Aide to the 3rd defendant, Senator Buruji Kashamu is not a “Public Officer” within the meaning of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) as to subject the first plaintiff to the Code of Conduct for Public Officers,

(ii) A Declaration that the 1st plaintiff, Hon. Onamusi Onadeko, not being a Public Officer is not prohibited by law from holding interest in Stanton Engineering Limited and Hianes & Baines Limited, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs (being private Limited Liability Companies),

(iii) A Declaration that the 1st plaintiff not being a Public Officer in the 2nd and 3rd being private Limited Companies does not amount to fraud within the provision of the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act capable of being investigate by the 1st defendant,

(iv) A Declaration that the award and execution of contracts with the Border Communities Development Agency in due compliance to the extant laws, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff respectively does not amount to fraud within the provision of the Corrupt Practice and other Related Offences Act 2000 capable of being investigated by the 1st defendant.

(v) A Declaration that it is not within the stationary powers of the 1st defendant to investigate the 1st plaintiff not being a public Officer on a purported allegation of fraud and

(vi) A Declaration that the publication and declaration of the 1st plaintiff, Hon. Onamusi Onadeko as “wanted for fraud” by the 1st defendant (Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission) in a newspaper publication without any formal letter of invitation or summons to the 1st plaintiff by the 1st defendant in gross violation of Section 29,30, and 31 of the Corrupt Practice and other Related Offences Act 2000 is unlawful, null and void and in contravention of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.

Reacting to the 1st plaintiffs’ claim, the 1st Defendant filed a memorandum of conditional appearance dated 15th of May, 2018 and filed on 16th of May, 2018 in addition to a Notice of preliminary objection also dated 15th of May, 2018 and filed on 16th of May, 2018.

According to Justice Mohammed; “By the preliminary objection, the 1st Defendant contends that the plaintiffs’ claim relates to a dispute concerning the status of employment of the 1st plaintiff by National Assembly Service Commission as a legislative aide to the 3rd Defendant. The issue formulated by the 1st Defendant in support of the preliminary is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain or grant the plaintiffs’ claim”.

Also, “By the preliminary objection, the 1st Defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the Plaintiffs’ suit on ground of Section 254 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) by the 3rd Alteration Act, No. 3 of 2010 which confers exclusive jurisdiction to National Industrial Court on matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service etc and matters thereto or connected therewith”.

A careful perusal of the Plaintiffs’ reliefs sought in the origination summons will leave no one in doubt that by this action, the plaintiffs are seeking the interpretation of Section 172, 173 and 318 Part 11 of the 5th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria. Following the above, I have no hesitation in resolving the sole issue raised and argued against the 1st Defendant. I therefore dismiss the preliminary objection for wanting in substance”

“The 2nd and 3rd Defendants Otunba Adeleke Adekoya and Senator Buruji Kashamu respectively counter affidavit is to the effect that the 1st Plaintiff without the knowledge of the 3rd Defendant used the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs’ companies in which he has substantial interest to apply and procure the award of contracts for executing constituency projects in the 3rd Defendant’s constituency. The address in support of the counter affidavit by the counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants formulated a lone issue for the determination of the Court. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants want the Court to rule on “Whether the originating summons by the 1st plaintiff has disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd defendants”. The Court resolved against the 2nd and 3rd defendants”.

In consequence of the findings, the court ordered as follows:

(i) That the 1st plaintiff is not an employee of the National Assembly Service Commission and is therefore not a public Officer for the purpose of the Code of Conduct for public officers mentioned in Part II fifth schedule of the 1999 Constitution and consequently resolved in favour of the plaintiffs.

(ii) That the 1st plaintiff, not being a Public Officer is not prohibited by law from holding interest in the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs being private Limited Liability Companies.

(iii) That the 1st defendant ought to have issued invitation or summons to the 1st plaintiff before declaring him wanted in accordance with the ICPC Act. That “the declaration of the 1st Plaintiff as wanted for fraud in the said publication leaves much to be desired and is accordingly hereby declared null and void”.
Attached PDF of Judgement (Click to view or Right Click to Download)

(1). JUDGMENT IN SUIT AGAINST ICPC (2). JUDGMENT ORDER