A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja yesterday warned all parties, including the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Mike Okiro, from taking any step relating to the subject matter of the suit filed by former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Malam Nuhu Ribadu, challenging his demotion.
Ribadu is challenging his demotion from the rank of Assistant Inspector-General of Police to Deputy Commissioner of Police.
But the court refused an oral application by Ribadu’s counsel, Charles Musa, to stop Okiro from relating with him (Ribadu) as a Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Meanwhile, the EFCC has denied a plan to arrest Ribadu, saying the invitation extended to him has to do with his job when he was the agency’s boss.
The trial Judge, Mr. Adamu Bello, held that the former EFCC chairman did not come properly for the relief that he should not be dealt with as police commissioner, stating that he should have filed an ex-parte application, whereof he would have moved the court to grant a restraining order stopping his posting.
“For that reason, I can’t acquiesce to the plaintiff’s request. But parties should be aware of the principle of lis pendis (pending suit) and all of them should take notice of the danger of disrupting the res (subject matter) in a pending matter,” Bello ruled.
Consequently, he adjourned the case till January 27, next year while directing parties to, within that time, exchange written briefs on both the originating summons filed by Ribadu and the multiple preliminary objections filed by the defendants to the case.
The Judge informed parties that the business of court on January 27, 2008 would be to have parties adopt their written briefs.
The Guardian recalls that following Ribadu’s demotion, he approached the Federal High Court, seeking to nullify the said demotion.
In his originating summons before the court, he asked the court to determine the following:
Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 6 (6) (b) and 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation 2004, Ribadu is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court to seek and obtain judicial remedies against the defendants for his demotion from the rank of Assistant Inspector-General of Police to the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, without first seeking the permission of the defendants;
whether the decision of the Police Service Commission (PSC) that his (Ribadu) promotions to the ranks of Commissioner of Police and Assistant Inspector-General of Police violated Section 153 (1) (m), paragraph 30 (a)-(b) of part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution and Section 6 (1) and (2) of the Police Service Commission Establishment Act 2001 which decision was communicated to him by the IGP via its letter of September 3, 2008 was not an unlawful usurpation of the judicial powers of the court to determine such issue; and
whether having regard to relevant laws, the plaintiff is not entitled to be afforded an opportunity of making representations to the Police Service Commission before the commission takes its decision to demote him.
Ribadu is also asking, among others, for the following:
A declaration that by virtue of Section 6 (6) (b) and 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation 2004, the plaintiff is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to seek and obtain judicial remedies against the defendants for his demotion by the Police Service Commission;
a declaration that the decision of the Police Service Commission that his (Ribadu) promotions to the ranks of Commissioner of Police and Assistant Inspector-General of Police violated Section 153(1) (m), paragraph 30 (a-b) of part 1 of the third schedule of the 1999 Constitution and Section 6(1) and (2) of Police Service Commission Establishment Act 2001 was an unlawful usurpation of the judicial powers of the court and therefore was ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void;
a declaration that the demotion of the plaintiff without the defendants first affording him an opportunity of making representations to them is contrary to his right and the rules of natural justice and therefore is unconstitutional, unlawful null and void.
a declaration that the defendants are not entitled in law to deploy the plaintiff to or compel him to perform any service in the Nigeria Police Force as a Deputy Commissioner of Police in pursuance of the purported demotion;
a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or representatives from imposing on the plaintiff any punishment or otherwise subjecting the plaintiff to any deprivation of whatever nature for invoking the jurisdiction of this court to seek judicial remedies for his demotion;
an order setting aside the decision of the first defendant whereby the plaintiff was demoted; and
an order setting aside the second defendant’s letter dated October 31, 2008 which was signed on his behalf by the Deputy Force Secretary whereby the plaintiff was queried for instituting a civil suit to challenge his demotion without first seeking the permission or approval of the second defendant or the Federal Government.
But the police immediately challenged the competence of Ribadu’s suit on the grounds that he breached the provisions of the Police Act by not seeking and obtaining its consent to institute the legal action.
According to the joint preliminary objection filed by the Police Service Commission, the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation, the trio argued that Ribadu’s action was caught by the statute of limitation since he had failed to fulfil conditions precedent to a police officer instituting a case against the Police Force.
They even argued that the plaintiff’s case was not justiceable on the premise that the reliefs being sought by him were not valid in law.
They also argued that the suit disclosed no cause or reasonable cause of action.
Other grounds given to oppose hearing in the suit include:
that the case constituted an abuse of court process;
that the plaintiff’s action was entirely speculative, vexatious and frivolous;
that the suit is incurably incompetent and or fundamentally defective; and
that the plaintiff’s case, as constituted, vested no jurisdiction in the court.
Briefing journalists in Abuja yesterday, Head of Media and Publicity of EFCC, Mr. Femi Babafemi, assured Ribadu that the invitation extended to him was not born out of personal vendetta.
He stressed that it was deemed necessary to enlighten Nigerians and stakeholders in the anti-graft war that the EFCC leadership’s interest in Ribadu was limited to his work as pioneer chairman of the agency.
The agency also distanced itself from the circumstances surrounding the handling of Ribadu by security operatives at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies last weekend and the showdown between him and his employer, the Nigeria Police.