The National Industrial Court (NIC) has dismissed a case seeking the recruitment of 1% of the indigenes of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) into Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) in Nigeria.
The President of the court, Justice Benedict Kanyip, dismissed the case “for lack of proof,” according to a statement by the NIC on Monday.
The matter, filed against the Federal Character Commission, cited alleged negligence of duty in ensuring that at least 1% of FCT indigenes are recruited into public service.
Facts of the Case
The applicant, identified by the court as Honourable Obika, averred that ministries and agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), in their recruitment of staff, have allegedly and consistently failed to recruit 1% of FCT indigenes into their workforce, pursuant to section 153(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates conformity and strict adherence to the relevant provisions of the Federal Character Commission Enabling Act.
He urged the court to determine whether the respondent’s inability to enforce compliance with respect to the 1% employment opportunity contained in the provisions of Part I, paragraph 6 of the Federal Character Commission Establishment Act 2004, has denied the indigenes of the Federal Capital Territory their employment opportunities in federal establishments.
“The Federal Character Commission has a responsibility not only to ensure that the 1% employment opportunity availed to indigenes of the FCT in the Act is implemented by government ministries and parastatals, but also to prosecute the head of any government ministry or parastatal that fails to implement the provisions of the law cited above,” the claimant added.
In response, the legal team of the Federal Character Commission submitted that Obika’s matter is not competent before the court and that the National Industrial Court is established to settle labour disputes, not to compel an organisation to offer employment.
“The Federal Capital Territory belongs to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the Constitution did not say or regard any person who resides within the Federal Capital Territory as an indigene of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” the Commission added.
The Commission urged the court to find and hold that the applicant has not presented any credible evidence that the court can rely on, and that the court should dismiss the matter with a cost of N100,000,000.00.
Court Judgment
Passing judgment, Justice Benedict Kanyip affirmed the jurisdiction of the NIC and ruled that the argument of the Federal Character Commission, “that a labour dispute can only arise between an employer and employees, and that there can never be a dispute between an employer and a person who has no employment with him, is very much misplaced.”
- Justice Kanyip ruled, however, that Obika’s case is devoid of live examples of victims who have suffered from the Federal Character Commission’s inability to perform its duty as enjoined by law.
- The judge added that the reliefs sought, even if granted, cannot be enforced by the court as they are difficult to police and enforce.
- The court explained that nowhere in the Federal Character Commission Act is it stated that the Commission is at fault for the breach of the Act by any government establishment.
- The court ruled that identifying who the FCT indigenes are is not even sufficient, as they must be indigenes who have shown interest in being employed, are qualified for the offices they applied for, but were not selected, and so are victims.
“All this, the applicant did none,” the judge said.
“Two classes of Nigerians qualify as indigenes of the FCT: Nigerian citizens who are not citizens by naturalisation and cannot lay claim to any State of the Federation; and persons born in the FCT whose descendants lived in the area presently constituting the FCT before 26 February 1976 and have continued to reside in the FCT after that date,” Justice Kanyip ruled.
- Justice Kanyip concluded that the applicant did not tell the court who the actual indigenes of the FCT are, adding that the evidence before the court concerns those already employed, not those who lost employment.
