The National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday reserved judgment for March 11, 2020, in the case between Sambo Abdullahi, a whistleblower in Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading (NBET) Plc, and NBET with the MD/CEO of the agency Dr. Marilyn Amobi as co-defendant.
Sambo, an internal auditor in the agency, had challenged NBET and its management in suit No. NICN/ABJ/349/2018 for the stoppage of his salary and other emoluments since December 22, 2017, till date for reporting alleged corruption perpetrated by Dr. Amobi.
The final addresses of the parties adopted before the Hon. Justice Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi on Tuesday were officially received by our correspondent.
Among the issues for the court’s determination was whether NBET and Amobi have the powers to discipline Sambo by suspending his salary and other emoluments.
Paragraph 6.6 of the defence address categorically stated that the claimant’s (Sambo) employment in the first defendant (NBET) was governed by the HR manual of the first defendant.
It went further to argue that Sambo’s salary and other emoluments were stopped based on his absenteeism from work and refusal to resume in the newly created Learning and Development unit of the first defendant.
On the issue of absenteeism, the defence relied on exhibit A15 (analysis on claimant’s attendance dated 20th March 2019).
This was the purported login attendance of NBET staff members showing when each staff resumed and closed from office.
In the claimant’s address while opposing the issue of absenteeism, his counsels argued that absenteeism was never a reason for the stoppage of his salary as contained in exhibit SA11 (letter from the first defendant’s head of corporate services to the claimant dated 27th December 2017) and exhibit A15 relied upon was orchestrated long after the salary was stopped as same covers the period from 1st July 2018 to 20th March 2019 while his salary was stopped in December 2017.
They added further that the purported exhibit A15 shows the login of ONLY the claimant as against detail resumption and closing login of the entire staff of NBET.
On the issue of the alleged refusal of the claimant to resume in the newly created Learning and Development unit (L & D), the defence argued that the management of NBET had power to create L & D department as same was provided for in in section 5.2.7 of the first defendant’s HR manual.
The defence argued that the claimant’s redeployment from internal audit to the L & D unit was to pave way for the accommodation of the treasury staff posted by the Accountant General of the Federation hence the claimant refused the posting and thereby rendered himself redundant.
In the claimant’s reply on this point, his counsel submitted that his client has never refused redeployment and had since reported and worked in L & D department as evidenced in exhibit SA13 and SA31 which were memos from the claimant’s line manager to the MD/CEO (second defendant) which is to the effect that he has been attending L & D departmental meetings and carrying out assigned duties.
On the issue of treasury staff, the claimant argued that by exhibit SA7, the OAGF treasury staff (Mrs Hauwa Bello) was posted to audit but not to head internal audit of the 1st defendant.
The claimant in paragraph 6.11 of the address recapped for the court the reasons adduced for the stoppage of his salary in exhibit SA11 to include seizure of internal audit stamps and safe.
But he contended that these items were submitted to the Permanent Secretary (Power) with the knowledge of the second defendant (MD/CEO) via exhibit SA15 since October 2017, three clear months before the claimant’s salary was stopped.
Refusal to be redeployed was also part of the ground for the stoppage of the claimant’s salary and other emoluments. Also, the outcome of the petition (Exhibit SA10) was another premise for the stoppage of the claimant’s salary.
This was communicated via exhibit SA18 to the first and second defendants but was never honoured.
While adopting the address of the first and second defendants, the learned silk for the defendants adumbrated his argument on the issue that by way of refusal of the claimant’s redeployment to the L & D department, the claimant’s leave form of 2017 for which approval was declined has on it internal audit as the claimant’s department and not L & D.
However, Olori-Aje, claimant’s counsel, objected to this position as this meant introducing a new fact to the case which is against the rules of the court.
He further argued that the form alleged was never before the court.
Her Lordship enquired from the counsel to the claimant whether he was served with additional authorities filed by the defence counsel.
The counsel to the claimant answered in the negative. The first and second defendants tendered apologies in the open court for not serving the claimant’s counsel additional authorities filed after filing their reply on point of law to the claimant’s address.
