Sanusi vs FG: Court fixes May 20 for judgment

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday reserved judgment till May 20 in the case by the suspended Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, challenging his suspension by President Goodluck Jonathan.
The judge, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, fixed the date after hearing the respondent counsel’s preliminary objection and Sanusi’s counsel’s originating summons, as well as the adoption of same.
Sanusi had on February 24 challenged his suspension from office by President Goodluck Jonathan and urged the court to reverse the decision.
The President, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Inspector-General of Police are the first, second and third defendants in the suit.
Sanusi had urged the court to restrain the defendants from “obstructing, disturbing, stopping or preventing him in any manner whatsoever, from performing the functions as Governor of the Central Bank”.
Sanusi had also sought to be allowed to fully enjoy the statutory powers and privileges attached to the office, arguing that any delay might cause him irreparable and serious damages.
Ruling earlier, Kolawole had taken the substantive suit and preliminary objection together.
He said: “In the instant case, where time is of essence, so that the plaintiff’s tenure does not expire before the case is determined, the court rules necessitate we hear both applications together.
“By Order 1 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court, it is judicially expedient that the hearing of the originating summons be heard with the preliminary objection.”
Dr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), Jonathan’s counsel, had in his preliminary objection, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
Ajogwu argued that by virtue of Section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The plaintiff’s suit, he said, fell under the purview of the National Industrial Court, which had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to employer-employee issues like in the instant case.
Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and Solomon Umoh (SAN), counsel to the Attorney-General and Inspector-General of Police, aligned with Ajogwu’s arguments on jurisdiction.
Ozekhome said: “The dispute between the plaintiff and the President pertains to issues bordering on the plaintiff’s employment, which is a matter for the National Industrial Court.
“I urge my lord to wash his hands off the case, like Pontius Pilate did, and dismiss the suit.”
However, Kola Awodein, Sanusi’s counsel, while arguing on point of law, said that the defendant’s counsel got it wrong by assuming that the case was about his client’s employment.
Awodein said: “Our suit, as formulated, is not about employment as the plaintiff is not an employee of the president, especially looking at the issues for determination and the relief sought.
“It is clear that the court is invited to interpretative duty to declare what the law is within the purview of Section 251 of the constitution.”