×

Court Upholds FG’s Objection To Sanusi’s Suit On Suspension

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has declined jurisdiction on a suit filed by the suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi … Continue reading Court Upholds FG’s Objection To Sanusi’s Suit On Suspension


Picture of a Gavel.

Picture of a Gavel.A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has declined jurisdiction on a suit filed by the suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, essentially challenging his suspension by the Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, on February 20, 2014.

In a ruling spanning over 2 hours, Justice Kolawole upheld the submissions of the Counsel to the President, Dr. Fabian Ajogwu, and that of the Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mike Ozekhome.

In his preliminary objection filed in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons, Counsel to the President, Dr. Fabian Ajogwu, argued that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit between Lamido Sanusi and the President since it bothers on labour matters.

Accordingly, he had urged the court to decline jurisdiction on it.

Towing the same vein, the Counsel to the Attorney-General of the Federation, sued as the 2nd Defendant, Mike Ozekhome, had in the hearing of the matter urged the Judge to wash his hands off the case as the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Upholding the submission of Counsel to the Defendants, the court declined jurisdiction and accordingly referred the matter to the National Industrial Court. The Judge, in the course of delivering the ruling, faulted the submissions of Counsel to Lamido Sanusi, Mr. Kola Awodein, and Mr AB Mahmoud, who in their pleadings had said that Mr Lamido Sanusi was not an employee of the Federal Government but that of the Board of the Central Bank of Nigeria, which he incidentally headed.

Upholding the arguments of the Counsel to the Inspector-General of Police, Mr Solomon Umoh, the court also struck out the name of the IGP sued as 3rd Defendant holding that there was no cause of action against the IG.