Connect with us

Court fixes date to rule on suit challenging NDDC chairman’s appointment

Published on

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, has scheduled October 31 to deliver its ruling and final judgment on a case seeking the removal of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Chairman, Mr. Chiedu Ebie, over claims of an unlawful appointment.

The case, brought forward by several Niger Delta communities, argues that President Bola Tinubu violated the NDDC Act by appointing Ebie.

The plaintiffs assert that Ebie does not meet the qualification of being from an oil-producing area with the highest quantum of oil production, as mandated by the NDDC Act.

Representing communities from Bayelsa and Delta States, the plaintiffs include Chief Goodnews Gereghewei, Chief Eddy Brayei, and Mr. Jonah Engineyouwei.

They filed the suit on behalf of their respective communities: Bisangbene, Agge, and Amatu 1, all located in the Ekeremor Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. President Tinubu, Senate President, Attorney-General of the Federation, NDDC, and Mr. Ebie are named as respondents in the case.

In addition to the initial plaintiffs, representatives from other oil-producing areas, including Jerry Mulade-Aroh from Gbaramatu Kingdom, Mr. Jolomi Itsekure representing the Itsekiri communities, and Friday Ugedi from Egbema Kingdom in Delta State, have also requested to join the suit.

During the court proceedings on Tuesday, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mr. Egberipou Sotonye Barakemi, urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by President Tinubu and the Attorney-General, emphasizing that the respondents’ case lacked merit.

On the other hand, the legal representatives of President Tinubu, the Attorney-General, the National Assembly, NDDC, and Ebie—Mrs. Maimuna Lami Ashiru, Umaru Jibril, and Emmanuel Akumaye, respectively—argued that the case should be thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction.

After hearing from all sides, Justice Abdulmalik announced that she would rule on both the preliminary objection and the main suit on October 31.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2024, and filed January 11, 2024, the plaintiffs claimed that both President Tinubu and the National Assembly contravened the NDDC Act by screening and appointing Ebie Chiedu as NDDC Board Chairman.

They submitted that although Ebie is from an oil-producing State, he was however not qualified for appointment as board chairman because he was not from the highest oil-producing areas.

In the affidavit deposed in support of the suit, the plaintiffs averred that Ebie’s appointment “was done in error and is against the clear provisions of the law.

“That the screening and confirmation of the 5th defendant by the Nigerian Senate was also done in error and was against the clear provisions of the law.

“That as a result of the facts above and in particular the facts in paragraphs 2 – 11, the appointment of the 5th defendant is null, void and of no effect”.

The plaintiffs through their lawyer, B. B. Abalaba, had asked the court to determine whether Ebie who is from a community with minimal oil production is qualifed to be the chairman of the 4th defendant (Niger Delta Development Commission)?

Other issues raised for determination are: Whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not in contravention of the NDDC Act.

“Whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not Illegal null and void?

They therefore prayed the court for an order “setting aside the appointment of the 5th defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant by the 1st defendant.

“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from assuming office or in any way acting as the chairman of the 4th defendant.

“An order of injunction restraining the 4th defendant from recognizing the 5th defendant as its chairman or allowing him access into its premises for the purpose of beginning or continuing work as its chairman.

“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from holding himself out as the chairman of the 4th defendant”.