Friday, May 25, 2018

Court voids Jibrin’s suspension, orders Reps to pay him accrued salaries


The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday voided the 180-legislative-day suspension imposed by the House of Representatives on a former Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriation, Abdulmumin Jibrin,  on September 28, 2016.

Delivering judgment in the suit filed by Jibrin to challenge the sanction imposed on him, Justice John Tsoho declared the suspension of the legislator as unconstitutional, holding that it violated Jibrin’s freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.

The judge ordered the lower legislative chamber to pay Jibrin all the salaries and emoluments due to him for the period he was unjustly suspended.

Justice Tsoho ruled, “The suspension was an interruption of his earnings which will be automatically restored especially when it has been decided that the action was a nullity by virtue of granting prayers 1 and 3 of the originating summons.

“When an action is declared a nullity, it is deemed that it never happened.”

Although Jibrin had since resumed his legislative duties, he was unrelenting in prosecuting his fundamental human rights enforcement suit challenging his suspension.

His suspension was a fallout of his campaign, which began in July 2016, demanding the removal of the Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, and other principal officers of the House over an allegation that they corruptly padded the 2016 budget by illegally adding about N40bn.

Jibrin had reported the alleged corrupt act to the various law enforcement agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission and the police.

The House of Representatives considered it “a campaign of calumny against the House and its leaders” and the lawmaker was suspended for 180 legislative days.

But ruling on Thursday, Justice Tsoho held that Jibrin’s act was a lawful one, holding that suspending him was an attempt to gag him.

“There is no better conclusion that the plaintiff was carrying out the mandate imposed on members by Chapter 7 (7.5) of the Code of Conduct for Honourable Members adopted on November 4, 2004,” the judge ruled.

Read more at www.armanikedu.blogspot.com

No comments:

Post a Comment