The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has denied unlawfully dismissing its deputy director, Mr. Yisa Usman, amid the latter’s N150 million lawsuit before the National Industrial Court, challenging his alleged wrongful termination by the board.
The denial was made on Monday by Dr. Abdulwahab Oyedokun, Director of Legal Services at JAMB Headquarters, who appeared as the board’s defence witness before Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae.
Oyedokun stressed that Usman was dismissed in line with due procedures enshrined in JAMB’s Staff Manual and the Public Service Rules.
Usman had filed a N150 million lawsuit against JAMB, marked NICN/ABJ/266/2023, alleging that the composition of the Board’s Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee, which dismissed him, was unlawful.
He urged the court to hold that “the claimant’s purported dismissal by the defendant (JAMB) without consideration of the Committee’s report by the defendant’s board is unlawful, illegal, null, and void.”
He further alleged that the committee mainly comprised the board’s registrar and other directors who were beneficiaries of the alleged infractions in JAMB that he had exposed.
The claimant sought an order reinstating him “to his position with full entitlements, benefits, and perks due to him by virtue of his position”, as well as an order granting him all the salaries, allowances, and perks that would have been due to him but for the purported dismissal.
What Transpired in Court
- At the resumed proceedings JAMB’s counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, led Oyedokun in evidence as the sole defence witness.
- Additionally, Owonikoko sought to tender 33 documents attached to the witness statement as evidence before the court.
- However, Mohammed Shuaibu, counsel for the claimant, did not oppose the application but stated that it would be subject to the claimant’s right to raise issues in the final written address.
- Consequently, the judge admitted the 33 documents as evidence.
“The documents are admitted in evidence subject to the claimant’s right to raise any issue in the written address,” she ruled.
- Oyedokun referenced the 33 certified documents, which detailed the timeline of the board’s probe into Usman, leading to his dismissal.
The documents identified in open court included:
- The report of the disciplinary committee.
- A letter conveying the approval of the disciplinary committee’s decision by the Federal Ministry of Education to JAMB.
- Clearance/exoneration letters from government bodies that investigated the claimant’s various petitions against the registrar and JAMB.
- The report of the Bureau of Public Procurement.
- A copy of the query issued to Usman.
- Promotion letters issued to Usman.
- A copy of his response to the query.
- His alleged refusal to hand over his official password.
- The conclusion of the investigation.
The report of the JAMB Directorate Disciplinary Committee forwarded to the Minister of Education.
A copy of the six-count charge filed by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against Usman at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Cross-Examination
Under cross-examination, the claimant’s lawyer, Mohammed Shuaibu, asked the witness whether he was aware that Chapter 9 of the JAMB Staff Manual states that the Disciplinary Committee, which probes deputy directors, must comprise all JAMB directors.
- The witness agreed that the Directorate Disciplinary Committee should be composed of all directors and reflect the Federal Character Principle to ensure equity and fairness.
- However, he added that a circular approved by the governing board, which superseded that provision, had been issued.
The witness insisted that, contrary to the claimant’s assertion that only directors could determine his fate, “the management of JAMB has the power to constitute a disciplinary committee.”
- He maintained that the power to discipline or dismiss the claimant was within the board’s jurisdiction, as enshrined in its enabling Act.
The witness told the court that Usman’s dismissal for infractions in public service was not done in bad faith or “unlawfully.”
- He highlighted that Usman was dismissed on July 3, 2023, while the court case against him was instituted on January 16, 2024.
“I put it to you that the composition of the Disciplinary Committee was wrong as it was not in accordance with laid-down procedure,” Shuaibu asked the witness.
“The committee’s composition is in order,” the witness responded.
- When asked whether the allegations leading to Usman’s dismissal had ever been referred to his head of department, Oyedokun confirmed that they had.
“Are you aware that under the Public Service Rules, the power to dismiss or discipline public servants lies with the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC)?” Shuaibu asked.
“That applies to those in core ministries. Those in parastatals are governed by their respective Acts,” the witness responded.
“I put it to you that the ministry that sanctioned the claimant and approved his dismissal had no power to do so,” Shuaibu said.
“That is not correct, my Lord,” Oyedokun responded.
- When Shuaibu asserted that the two representatives from the Federal Ministry of Education in the disciplinary committee should not have been part of the panel, Oyedokun argued that they were required as representatives of the supervising ministry.
- The witness told the court that JAMB’s Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, the Director of Finance and Accounts, and Mabel Agbebaku, among others, had recused themselves from the disciplinary committee due to Usman’s petitions against them, ensuring a fair hearing.
After the witness’s testimony, Owonikoko announced the closure of JAMB’s defence.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae subsequently adjourned the matter until May 28, 2025, for the adoption of final written addresses by the parties.
Nairametrics reports that after the written addresses have been adopted, the court will adjourn for judgment.
