Domestic violence law on a wooden table.
The National Industrial Court, sitting in Kaduna, has delivered a landmark ruling declaring any provision of the Kaduna State Public Service Rules that classifies the filing of a lawsuit by a public servant against the government as serious misconduct to be unconstitutional.
Delivering judgment, Justice Bashar Alkali affirmed that every citizen possesses the constitutional right to seek redress in court. In a significant rebuke to the state authorities, the court awarded teacher Jonathan Moses ₦500,000 in exemplary damages for what it characterised as an act of oppression.
The court further declared as wrongful, null, and void the verbal threats of dismissal made by the Permanent Secretary of the Kaduna State Ministry of Education to Moses on June 16, 2019. These threats followed Moses’s decision to file a suit against the state government. Justice Alkali also granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Kaduna State Government, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and two other defendants from taking any disciplinary action against Moses in connection with his pursuit of judicial redress.
According to court documents, Moses informed the court that while serving as a teacher at Government Secondary School, he was allocated staff housing by the Kaduna State Ministry of Education via a letter dated June 22, 2015. He testified that he resided in the quarters and continued to report to his duty station without any complaints regarding his productivity.
Moses further told the court that in 2015, the defendants introduced a policy requiring teachers living in school quarters while teaching elsewhere to vacate the accommodation. He alleged that an eviction task force forcibly removed his belongings from the house, locked it, and that some of his personal effects were later taken away by unknown persons following the government’s action.
Subsequent to the incident, Moses filed a suit before the National Industrial Court over what he described as the ill-treatment he suffered. While that case was still pending, the Kaduna State Government and the Ministry of Education issued him a query dated June 25, 2019, accusing him of serious misconduct for suing his employer while still in active service, citing the Public Service Rules. He responded to the query the following day.
In his legal challenge, Moses asked the court to declare that any provision of the Kaduna State Public Service Rules, 2005 Edition, which makes it a serious act of misconduct for an employee to sue the government is void. He argued that it conflicts with Section 6(6) and Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which guarantee access to the courts.
In their defence, the Kaduna State Government, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, and the other defendants argued that the allocation of staff quarters is a privilege and not a right. They maintained that while other affected teachers complied with the government’s relocation policy, Moses refused to do so despite being aware of the directive.
The defendants also informed the court that they issued Moses a first query on February 23, 2016, and a second query on June 25, 2019, in line with the Public Service Rules. They added that no disciplinary action was eventually taken against him.
Counsel to the claimant, E.N. Ogbu, argued that the defendants failed to challenge the key facts presented by his client. He submitted that after Moses approached the court, the defendants attempted to dissuade him by issuing another query, which he argued was unconstitutional.
In his judgment, Justice Alkali held that no provision of the Public Service Rules makes it an act of gross misconduct for an employee to sue an employer. He stated that the second query issued to Moses demonstrated that the defendants had misunderstood what constitutes gross misconduct under the Public Service Rules.
The judge further reinforced that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that any law or action by any person or authority that prevents a citizen from seeking justice in court is null and void.
Justice Alkali also accepted Moses’s evidence that the Permanent Secretary threatened him with dismissal for seeking judicial redress. In a strongly worded conclusion, he held that, “Threatening an employee with dismissal on account of seeking judicial redress is not only asinine, but also it is a medieval act in the 21st Century.”
Consequently, the court declared the threats wrongful, null, and void; restrained the defendants from taking any disciplinary action against Moses over the suit; and awarded him ₦500,000 in exemplary damages.
