Court orders reinstatement of army general

Nigerian Army
Nigerian Army

The National Industrial Court, Abuja on Monday ordered the reinstatement of Ijioma Nwokoro Ijioma, a major general, in the Nigerian Army.

Mr Ijioma was one of the 38 officers of the Nigerian Army retired in June, 2016.

Delivering judgment, the judge, Edith Agbakoba, held that there was evidence that due process was not followed in the compulsory retirement of the claimant.

She held that he was not informed about his offence and neither was he tried before a court martial for any offence before his compulsory retirement.

Mrs Agbakoba also held that the claimant was not accorded fair hearing by not giving him opportunity to defend himself.

She therefore declared that the compulsory retirement was wrongful, illegal, null, void and of no effect.

She also declared that the claimant was still a staff of the Nigerian Army.

The judge further set aside the letter of the compulsory retirement dated June 9, 2016.

Mr Agbakoba also ordered the reinstatement of the claimant to his position with payment of all entitlements and privileges accrued to him.

The judge equally directed that the defendants, their agents were restrained from stopping, interfering or victimising the claimant.

Advertisement

RIPAN Campaign AD

She then awarded N200,000 in favour of the claimant as cost of prosecuting the suit.

Joined in the suit as co-defendants were the chief of army staff, the minister of defence and the chief of defence staff.

The General approached the court, seeking redress and several reliefs amongst which was reinstatement, stating that his compulsory retirement did not follow due process and procedure as stipulated by the Armed Forces Act for an officer of his status.

He argued that because his retirement did not follow due process, he consequently sought court declaration to declare it as illegal, invalid, wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

He also prayed that the court compel the defendants jointly and severally to pay him the sum of N1 billion as general, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages for the unlawful, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional and oppressive compulsory retirement.

The N1 billion, he argued was also for the attendant humiliation, psychological trauma, mental agony and odium caused him and his family, by the actions of the defendants.

Counsel for the first and fourth defendants, Dare Owolabi, had earlier before the judgment accused the court’s staff of bias in their dealings with him.

Counsel to the claimant, Godwin Iyinbor, said there was no justifiable reason for the claimant’s early compulsory retirement as he had not attained the mandatory retirement age nor had he served the army for 35 years as stipulated in the Army.

Mr Iyinbor said the retirement age for Major Generals was 56 years and that the claimant was only 53 years as at the time of the retirement, and had only served for 32 years, 11 months and five days, as against the mandatory 35 years service age for retirement as provided for by Rule 020810 of the Federal Government Public Service Rules, which is also applicable to the Military.

Mr Ijioma, in his statement of claims, stated that on June 10, 2016, while at work, he got a text message from one Lt.-Col. S.O.G. Aremu, Staff Officer to the Military Secretary in charge of recruitment, deployment, appointment informing him that the Army Council, which sat on June 9, 2016, had retired him.

He said he later got another letter that the Army Council at its meeting of June 9, 2016, approving his compulsory retirement from the Nigerian Army, with effect from June 9, 2016, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 09.02c(4) of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service.

He said the compulsory retirement, according to the letter, was done on disciplinary ground bordering on serious offence.

Mr Ijioma further said meanwhile, no proceeding was held to try him, no verdict given, no record of proceedings was compiled and transmitted, with the verdict to Army Council, for ratification.

The claimant claimed further that he was never given any charge in the prescribed Form AB 252, which was the means of reporting an offence against service personnel.

(NAN)

Support PREMIUM TIMES' journalism of integrity and credibility

Good journalism costs a lot of money. Yet only good journalism can ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

For continued free access to the best investigative journalism in the country we ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

By contributing to PREMIUM TIMES, you are helping to sustain a journalism of relevance and ensuring it remains free and available to all.

Donate


NEVER MISS A THING AGAIN! Subscribe to our newsletter

* indicates required

DOWNLOAD THE PREMIUM TIMES MOBILE APP

Now available on

  Premium Times Android mobile applicationPremium Times iOS mobile applicationPremium Times blackberry mobile applicationPremium Times windows mobile application

TEXT AD: This space is available for a Text_Ad.. Call Willie on +2347088095401 for more information


All rights reserved. This material and any other material on this platform may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, written or distributed in full or in part, without written permission from PREMIUM TIMES.