Former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nuhu Ribadu, can seek legal action against the police authority expressly without obtaining permission from the authority, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja ruled yesterday.

The provisions of the Police Act specifically require aggrieved officers to give a month’s notice before any of them can institute legal action against the authority.

Mr. Ribadu had dragged the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa before the court challenging his dismissal from the force.

Case history

The police service commission had, in July 2008, reverted the ranks of Mr. Ribadu and 139 others, saying that their promotions were illegal and therefore violated basic criteria and rules.

But, delivering his ruling on the preliminary objections raised to Mr. Ribadu’s suit by the federal government, the judge, Adamu Bello, dismissed all the grounds of objection except one dealing with the mode of commencement of the action.

On this ground, the court agreed with the defendants that the action was wrongly initiated by an originating summons instead of a writ of summons, since it raised substantial contentious issues of facts.

Mr. Bello however converted the suit to a writ of summons rather than strike it out and told the plaintiff’s lawyer to file the writ of summon within 28 days and adjourned the case till March 29 for mention.

Unconstitutional provisions

The court also said the provisions of the Police Act that require the aggrieved officer to take permission from the police authority before seeking legal redress against it were inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution.

He held that, by coming to court without the express permission from the police authority, Mr. Ribadu has only exercised his discretionary right, as the provision does not make it mandatory for him to get the approval of his employers before seeking redress in a court of law.

“It would have been fool-hardy for. Mr. Ribadu to seek and await the approval from the authority as such approval may never come,” Mr. Bello said. “To say that Mr. Ribadu must seek the approval of the police authority before instituting the action in court is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution. Regulations 347 of the Police Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution and is therefore void on the strength of this inconsistency.”

The court also affirmed that Mr. Ribadu has shown sufficient legal interest to the court to be clothed with locus standi and therefore has the right to file the action.

The court further resolved in his favour on the issue as to whether his action was an abuse of court processes, holding that it was not.

LINK

Good.