Former workers of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), who were affected by the 1996/98 rationalisation have appealed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola to reconsider their appeal SC.520/2012, Adedeji & Ors v CBN, which was dismissed “unfairly” on December 2, 2022 by the apex court, in the interest of justice.
The former workers, who said they were unceremoniously fired without any justifiable reason other than being told that it was a directive from the Federal Government, informed the CJN that the judgment fell far short of all his previous and recent calls on judges to interpret the law at all times without affection or ill-will.
Represented by their chairman, Mr. Segun Lakanu and General Secretary, Mr. Wilson Onyofunazua, the group in a letter dated July 14, 2023 and titled, “Passionate Appeal for Reconsideration of our case”, prayed the CJN to graciously revisit the decision.
They explained that they challenged their sudden dismissal at the lower courts unsuccessfully when efforts to get reinstated failed, and filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, formulating four issues to redress the wrong done to them.
”
Curiously and astonishingly, the lead Justice chose one of the issues formulated by the Bank’s lawyer as being the lone issue to decide a case that was to us a matter of life and death.
“We would like to point out with all sense of respect for his Lordship that this decision was not based on an even scale of Justice.
“The judgment was based solely on the Federal Government “directive” which ought not to be, as our case should also be judged on the basis of the statutory nature of our employment.
“A thorough and very careful examination of this lone issue used to decide our case did not in any meaningful way address one of the core issues of why we were in court, which was whether our employment were validly terminated in compliance with the relevant chapters of the Bank’s Staff Manual.
“Besides, and importantly, the judgment reached on this lone issue was at best, a partial judgment that left the other issues in abeyance and cannot therefore be a substitute for a complete judgment as long as the other legitimate issues were not addressed,” they explained.
According to the aggrieved litigants, the three outstanding grounds of appeal as formulated by their counsel, which were not considered are as follows:
“Whether having regards to the provision of the CBN Act of 1990 and the extant CBN Staff Manual, the employment of the staff of the respondent Bank enjoys statutory flavour.
If so, were the employments of the appellants validly terminated by the first respondent in compliance with the relevant chapters of the Bank’s Staff Manual?
“In view of the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case coupled with the age long legal principle that if an act is void and a nullity, it is to all intents and purposes void as you cannot put something on nothing; and whether the appellants are not entitled to be reinstated to their jobs with the CBN?”
They lamented that the lead judgment sadly did not consider these aforementioned issues, adding that a consideration of those three outstanding issues would have been helpful to reach a just, fair, equitable and balanced judgment.
The letter reads in part: “It is worth noting that we were employed under the 1990 CBN Act and our terms of employment are not different from that of Dr. Igwillo (CBN vs Igwillo (2007 4-5 S.C 154) whose employment was deemed to have statutory flavour.
“As per this judgment, it is now settled in law that where an employment is protected by Statute and his employment is wrongly terminated, i.e not done in line with the laid down rules and regulations, he would be entitled to reinstatement.
“To this day, this much quoted judgment on employment with statutory flavour has not been overturned in any competent court in the land.
“To buttress this point, a few years back, Mr. Tunde Akinlusi employed like us under the 1990 CBN Act, whose employment was terminated by the Bank in June 1992 was adjudged by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in 2013 to have been wrongfully terminated as his employment had statutory flavour, and should therefore be reinstated based on the Supreme Court decision as in the case of CBN vs Igwillo.
“The Bank has since re-absorbed him with all his entitlements paid as per the court decision. We had cited this particular case in our Appeal (Akinlusi v CBN (2014) 44 NLLR pt.141 p500). To us, what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.”
The group added that more than half of those rationalised workers did not qualify for pensions as they had not spent the mandatory 10 years in the service of the Bank, while those receiving pensions are not getting much in view of their short stay in the Bank.
“As at today, some have sadly passed on, while those living are in their late sixties, old, feeble and infirm and living largely on the grace of God and on the goodwill of their friends and families who themselves have their own serious personal problems to contend with,” they lamented.
