The National Industrial Court of Nigeria has dismissed a suit filed by Rashidat Ronke Oyeneyin against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), challenging her dismissal from service over allegations of serious misconduct bordering on bribery and corruption.
Delivering judgment at the Abuja Judicial Division of the court, Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae ruled that an employer does not need to obtain a criminal conviction before dismissing an employee accused of gross misconduct bordering on criminality, provided the disciplinary process is lawful.
Oyeneyin told the court that the EFCC issued her a query over alleged misconduct but failed to provide the petition or report on which the allegations were based. She said she denied the allegations in her response but was subsequently suspended.
She further stated that she appeared before the Appointments, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee (APDC), where she was questioned about the allegations. However, she alleged that she was not shown the petition or allowed to question its author or the alleged client. She also accused the committee of bias and said it rejected her request for a polygraph test.
In its defence, the EFCC maintained that it investigated Oyeneyin following a complaint alleging misconduct and tendered an audio recording as evidence before the court.
The commission said its investigation report established a case of misconduct against her and recommended appropriate disciplinary action. It added that the disciplinary committee found her explanations unconvincing and recommended her dismissal.
Counsel to Oyeneyin argued that the EFCC denied his client a fair hearing during the disciplinary process by failing to provide the complaint and other relevant materials. He also faulted the committee for not inviting the complainant and other relevant persons for questioning.
The claimant’s counsel further challenged the composition and authority of the disciplinary committee, arguing that the allegations had not been properly established. He urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by his client.
However, counsel to the EFCC, Chile Okoroma, SAN, argued that the disciplinary proceedings were administrative and not criminal. He submitted that the commission was not required to secure a criminal conviction before disciplining Oyeneyin for misconduct.
Okoroma further maintained that the EFCC was entitled to exercise its disciplinary powers through its internal governance structures and that the process followed the applicable procedures.
In her judgment, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that an employee challenging a dismissal must prove the terms and conditions of employment and show how the employer breached them.
The judge noted that although Oyeneyin presented her letters of appointment, confirmation and promotion, the documents did not contain the terms and conditions governing her employment. She also held that the claimant had neither pleaded the Public Service Rules as governing her employment nor presented them to the court as evidence of the conditions allegedly breached by the EFCC.
The court further ruled that the EFCC, as Oyeneyin’s employer, had the authority to discipline her through its internal governance structures. It found no evidence that the Appointments, Promotion and Disciplinary Committee was improperly constituted or lacked the authority to invite her to appear before it.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae also held that Oyeneyin was given the opportunity to be heard at every stage of the disciplinary process, adding that the query issued to her and her response satisfied the requirement of fair hearing.
The judge stated that the disciplinary committee found Oyeneyin’s explanations unconvincing and concluded that she was involved in serious acts of misconduct under the Public Service Rules, bordering on bribery and corruption.
The court consequently held that the EFCC had justified the reason for her dismissal and ruled that her separation from the commission was lawful.
