The President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip PhD, FNIALS has dismissed the matter filed by former Registrar-General of the Abuja Multi-Door Court House of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Mrs Ramatu Shehu against FCT Judicial Service Committee and Attorney General of the Federation for lacking merit.

The Court held that the tenure Policy in the Federal Civil Service has no application to the Mrs Ramatu and further that the 8-year tenure rule as adopted by the FCT Judicial Service Committee subsists and applies to the claimant.

From facts, the claimant- Mrs Ramatu was sent on compulsory retirement 26th June 2018 by the Judicial Service Committee of the FCT.

Counsel to Mrs Ramatu opined that the purported provisions of the Public Service Rules upon which the 1st defendant- FCT JSC relied upon to compulsorily retire the claimant on the ground that she had served in a capacity equivalent to that of a “Permanent Secretary” for a period of eight years is a mere statement of policy intent as the application of those provisions has been suspended by the circular issued by the Head of Service of the Federation that nothing empowers the 1st defendant to compulsorily retire the claimant who has neither reached 50 years of age nor attained 35 years of service as a civil servant without recourse to the extant Public Service Rules.

However, the FCT JSC submitted that it has power to make its own policies or adopt whichever policy it wishes at any time in its operation that the Judicial Service Committee has the constitutional powers to make appointments or to exercise disciplinary control over person and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person, that the compulsory retirement of the claimant by the 1st defendant was lawfully and constitutional, urged the Court to so hold and dismiss the claimant’s case.

Further contended that it is not bound by circulars emanating from the Office of the Head of Service of the Federation, particularly the circular suspending the tenure policy of Directors and Permanent Secretaries in the public service.

Delivering Judgment, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip, PhD held that circulars cannot override clear provisions of the Public Service Rules especially if it is noted that the Rules themselves derive from the Constitution and accordingly have constitutional force.

"The evidence of DW under cross-examination that he is a Federal Civil Servant will accordingly go to no issue here since being a staff of the 1st defendant, he is a public officer, not a civil servant. The implication of all this is that in suspending “the Tenure Policy in the Federal Civil Service”, Exhibit C21(a) cannot be read to have done so in respect of staff of either the National Assembly or the Federal Judiciary. This means that the claimant in the instant case cannot rely on it.

"I do not accordingly agree with the claimant’s interpretation that a Permanent Secretary who served 8 years (two terms of 4 years each) cannot be retired until he attains 60 years of age or 35 years of service. What the claimant did not address her mind to is that by sub-rule (iv)(a) a Director must compulsorily retire after eight years on the post. 

"If the Permanent Secretary is not to retire after two terms, will the Permanent Secretary go back to being a Director since it is from Director that one becomes a Permanent Secretary? Why would a Director compulsory retire after eight years on the post and the Permanent Secretary not retire after two terms? I accordingly reject the agreement of the claimant in this regard as it has no merit. I so hold.

 
"Since Exhibit C21(a) has no application to the claimant, the 8-year tenure rule as adopted by the 1st defendant subsists and so applies to the claimant. This being so, none of the reliefs claimed by the claimant in this suit is grantable. Her case accordingly fails and so is hereby dismissed.” Justice Kanyip Ruled.

For Full Judgment, Visit the Judgment’s Portal