Dismissed Civil Defence Officers Drag Commandant, Minister To Court

The National Industrial Court on Tuesday resumed hearing in a suit filed by 90 officers of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, NSCDC, against the agency for wrongful termination of their employment.

The claimants, led by Entonou Oyigocho, joined the commandant-general of NSCDC, the minister and the ministry of Interior, as third and fourth defendants in the suit.

They are praying the court to declare that the withdrawal of their uniforms and appointment letters by the defendants was null and void and of no effect.

Read this also:  FACT CHECK: Is INEC really handicapped to curb underage voting in LG poll?

The claimants are also seeking for an order directing the defendants to recall them and to release the original copies of their employment letters to them.

They are also seeking for an order of the court directing the defendants to immediately pay them all the arrears of their salaries from July 2008 till date.

When the matter came up earlier in July for hearing in July, the claimants told the court that the defendants had not dismissed them.

Read this also:  Oxfam says Haiti director 'admitted to using prostitutes at his residence'

Oyigocho, under cross-examination, told the court that the second defendant (CG) ordered the withdrawal of their uniforms and appointment letters in July 2008.

He told the court that the defendants stopped the payment of their salaries since then, adding that their pension contribution was still running.

Oyigocho also said that they were still officers of the defendants because their pension accounts were being credited every month.

Read this also:  World Mother Tongue Day: Awaiting Kerry Washington’s tweet for Nigerian children

The claimants’ counsel, Ajugu Ataguba, informed the court that neither the defendants nor their counsel made an appearance and urged the court to adjourn the matter in the interest of justice.

The president of the court, Justice Babatunde Adejumo, granted the request and adjourned the case to October 28 for further hearing.



Comment on this: