The Court of Appeal has been urged to set aside the August 7, 2020 judgment of the High Court of Nasarawa State in Akwanga voiding the indictment of former Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Aliyu Ahmed Tijani in relation to his handling of N1billion school renovation project.
The request is contained in an appeal filed on behalf of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly and its Speaker by their lawyer, Matthew Burkaa, before the Court of Appeal in Makurdi, Benue State in which they also seek in the order dismissing Tijani’s originating summons filed on June 4, 2020, for being unmeritorious.
The Nasarawa State House of Assembly had indicted Tijani on his handling of the N1billion public schools fencing/renovation project while he served as the Commissioner for Education and found among others, that N248,848,556.60 out of the project’s sum was unaccounted for.
The House of Assembly proceeded to indict him for allegedly embezzling the N248,848,556.60 and directed him to refund the amount. He was subsequently sacked as the SSG by the State Governor, Abdullahi Sule.
Tijani challenged his indictment in the suit, marked: NSD/LF/46/2020, which he filed before the High Court of Nasarawa State in Akwanga and prayed the court to among others, void the findings of the state’s Assembly.
Defendants in the suit were the state’s Assembly, its Speaker, the State Governor, and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.
Justice Mustapha A. Ramat, in the judgment of August 7, 2020, held in TIjani’s favour and granted all his reliefs, including setting aside his indictment on the grounds that he was not accorded fair hearing in the course of the House of Assembly’s investigation.
In their appeal against the judgment, the state’s Assembly and its Speaker raised six grounds on which basis they are praying the Court of Appeal to among other, reverse the decision and uphold Tijani’s indictment.
In the appeal with the number: CA/MK/135/2020, the appellants particularly faulted Justice Ramat for wrongly assuming jurisdiction over a labour related case, which he misclassified as a fundamental rights enforcement suit.
They argued that the trial judge erred in law and occasioned a grave injustice on the appellants when he assumed jurisdiction over the suit which sought to protect Tijani’s employment as the Secretary of the Government of Nasarawa State despite the provision of Section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution which vest exclusive jurisdiction on labour and employment cases on the National Industrial Court.
“The reliefs sought by the 1st respondent (Tijani) were all aimed at preventing, in the 1st respondent’s own words, the suspension, removal or sanction of the 1st respondent and ensuring the smooth, full, peaceful service of the 1st respondent as the Secretary to the State Government of Nasarawa,” they said.
The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in law and came to a legally wrong conclusion when he held that Tijani was not accorded fair hearing by the House of Assembly.
They added that the finding by the trial court that Tijani was not afforded fair hearing was at variance with the evidence led by parties, particularly the 1st respondent (Tijani), who admitted appearing before the House of Assembly twice, on 17and 24 March 2020 in the course of the investigation.
The appellants also faulted the trial judge for granting the reliefs contained the Tijani’s originating summons “despite the glaring contradictions in his affidavit before the court.
They also faulted the trial judge for deciding the case under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure despite the fact that Tijani’s principal reliefs could not be situated within Chapter 4 of the Constitution or any fundamental rights enforcement instruments.
The appellants argued that Tijani filed the suit seeking the court’s interpretation and application of Section 6(6) of the Constitution, to protect his position as the Secretary to the state government.
They contended that the trial court was wrong to have treated the case like that for the enforcement of fundamental rights “as the right to occupy the office of the Secretary to the State Government (SSG) is not guaranteed in Chapter s of the Constitution and any other rights enforcement instruments.”
