Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae of the Abuja Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the case filed by Rashidat against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, challenging her dismissal from service.
The Court held that the law does not require that an employee accused of gross misconduct bordering on criminality be tried in court before the employer can terminate or summarily dismiss the employee.
From the facts, the Claimant, Rashidat, submitted that she was issued a query alleging misconduct, that the EFCC did not provide her with the purported petition or report, that she denied the allegations in her response, and that she was subsequently suspended.
Rashidat further stated that she appeared before the Appointments, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee (APDC), where she was questioned on the allegations but was not shown the petition or allowed to question its author or the alleged client. She alleged that the Committee was biased and had rejected her request for a polygraph test.
In defence, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission maintained that Claimant was investigated following a complaint alleging misconduct and tendered the audio recording as evidence.
EFCC averred that the investigation report found that a case of misconduct had been established against the Claimant and recommended that appropriate disciplinary measures be instituted, while the Disciplinary Committee subsequently found her explanations unconvincing and recommended her dismissal.
In opposition, Counsel to Claimant maintained that his client was denied a fair hearing in the disciplinary process, contending that the petition or complaint and other materials were not made available to her and that the author of the complaint and other relevant persons were not called before the Disciplinary Committee for questioning.
Counsel also challenged the composition and authority of the Committee and maintained that the allegations of misconduct were not properly established against his client and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
In reply, counsel to the Defendant, Chile Okoroma SAN, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were not criminal and that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was not required to first secure a criminal conviction before disciplining Rashidat for misconduct.
Counsel posited that the EFCC was entitled to exercise its disciplinary powers through its internal governance structures and that the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedure.
In a well-considered judgment, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae ruled that a Claimant alleging wrongful termination or dismissal from service has the onus of pleading and proving the contract of service and the terms and conditions governing the employment, and establishing in what manner those terms were breached by the employer.
The Court held that although Rashidat placed her letters of appointment, confirmation and promotion in evidence, they did not contain the terms and conditions regulating her employment, while the Public Service Rules had neither been pleaded as regulating her employment nor placed before the Court as proof of the terms and conditions alleged to have been violated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The Court further held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was the employer of Rashidat and had disciplinary powers over her through its internal governance structures, and that there was no evidence that the Appointments, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee was improperly constituted or lacked authority to invite Rashidat to appear before it.
The Court found that Rashidat was allowed to be heard at every stage of the disciplinary process and held that the query issued to her and her response satisfied the requirement of fair hearing.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae stated that the Disciplinary Committee found her explanations unconvincing and found her involved in serious acts of misconduct under the Public Service Rules bordering on bribery and corruption.
The Court held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had justified the reason for the dismissal and that the separation of Rashidat from the EFCC was lawful.
Visit judgment portal for full details
