TheNewsGuru

Tag: Falana

  • Falana threatens to sue Buhari over indiscriminate allocation of oil blocks to corporate, private individuals

    A senior Nigerian lawyer, Femi Falana, has threatened to go to court if the Muhammadu Buhari administration goes ahead to allocate oil blocks to private individuals and corporate bodies.

    Falana said such allocations are a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Nigerian masses to freedom from discrimination and equal right of access to public property.

    His threat was contained in a letter to the president, dated March 20.

    In the letter titled, “Request to Stop Allocating Oil Blocks to Private Individuals and Corporate Bodies”, the lawyer also warned the president to restrict the allocation of oil blocks including marginal fields to the Federal Government and the governments of the 36 states of the Federation.

    Read the full text of the letter below:

    March 20, 2019

    Alhaji Mohammed Buhari,

    President & Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces,

    Presidential Villa,

    Aso Rock,

    Abuja.

    Your Excellency,

    REQUEST TO STOP ALLOCATING OIL BLOCKS TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATE BODIES

    Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Federal Government to revoke a number of oil blocks and marginal fields hitherto allocated to a few individuals as well as local and foreign corporate bodies by former military and civilian regimes in Nigeria.

    While commending Your Excellency for the courageous decision we urge the Federal government to desist from renewing the remaining licenses of other oil block owners in the country. Having acquired the “entire property in and control or all minerals, mineral oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in, under or upon the territorial waters” and vested same in the Federal Government on behalf of the people of Nigeria pursuant to section 44(3) of the Constitution it is inequitable, illegal and unconstitutional to allocate the nation’s oil blocks to a few individuals and corporate bodies including multinational corporations.

    Your Excellency may no doubt be aware that majority of the owners of the oil blocks belonging to the Nigerian people usually sub-lease them to offshore companies as they lack the fund and the technical expertise to develop the oil and gas industry. By merely collecting huge rents the oil block owners become stupendously rich while the federal, state and local governments depend on loans and bailout to pay salaries and carry out basic infrastructural development of the country. Thus, by allocating oil blocks to a few individuals and corporate bodies the Federal Government has violated Section 16(2) (c) of the Constitution which provides that “the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group.”

    Furthermore, the allocation of oil blocks to a few individuals and corporate bodies by the Federal Government constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental rights of the Nigerian people to freedom from discrimination, equal right of access to public property and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind as well as the right to social, economic and cultural development guaranteed by articles 2, 13, 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. Therefore, pursuant to article 22 thereof which has imposed a duty on the Federal Government to freely dispose of the wealth and national resources of the nation in the exclusive interests of the Nigerian people we urge Your Excellency to desist from allocating oil and blocks to a select group of Nigerians and foreigners.

    In view of the foregoing, we urge Your Excellency to restrict the allocation of oil blocks including marginal fields to the Federal Government and the governments of the 36 states of the Federation. This request is in line with section 16 (1) (b) of the Constitution which has mandated the Nigerian State to “control the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity.”

    TAKE NOTICE: that if the Federal Government refuses to accede to our request we shall be compelled to challenge the constitutional validity of allocating the oil blocks and other natural resources collectively owned by the Nigerian people but vested in the Federal Government to a few private individuals and corporate bodies.

    Please accept the assurances of our highest esteem.

    Yours sincerely,

    FEMI FALANA, SAN, FCI Arb.

     

  • 2023: Falana advocates de-registration of 81 ‘paperweight’ political parties

    2023: Falana advocates de-registration of 81 ‘paperweight’ political parties

    A senior advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission to wake up to its duties by de-registering political parties that failed to scale some minimum constitutional benchmarks.

    In a statement today, Falana, a leading human rights advocate, said the application of the rules will see the number of political parties cut from 91 to fewer than 10.

    Contrary to the widespread belief that INEC has no such power, the human rights lawyer said the power was restored to the agency following the 2017 constitutional amendment.

    The learned lawyer recalled how some political parties successfully challenged INEC’s power after the amendment of the Electoral Act in 2010. He said the National Assembly bolstered the commission via the constitutional amendment.

    “Disturbed by the mockery of multi party democracy in the country through the unprincipled proliferation of political parties the National Assembly amended the Electoral Act 2010 to empower INEC to de-register political parties that failed to win any election. Since political parties were registered pursuant to section 222 of the Constitution the suits filed by the affected political parties succeeded as the Federal High Court declared the amendment unconstitutional and set it aside.

    Among the grounds are that a party can be de-registered if it breaches any of the requirements for registration and fails to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in one State of the Federation in a Presidential election; or one Local Government of the State in a Governorship election.

    “However, the National Assembly took advantage of the 2017 constitutional review to reduce the number of registered political parties in the country. Thus, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No 9) Act, 2017 enacted on May 4, 2017 has amended section 225 of the 1999 Constitution to empower the Independent National Electoral Commission to de-register political parties,” Falana wrote.

    Among the grounds are that a party can be de-registered if it breaches any of the requirements for registration and fails to win at least twenty-five percent of votes cast in one State of the Federation in a Presidential election; or one Local Government of the State in a Governorship election.

    A party can also be de-registered if it fails to win at least one ward in the Chairmanship election; one seat in the National or State House of Assembly election; or one seat in the Councillorship election.

    “From the foregoing, it is indubitably clear that INEC has been conferred with enormous powers to de-register political parties that fail to meet the fresh constitutional prerequisites.

    “Going by the results of the 2019 general elections the 91 registered political parties may have been reduced to less than 10 that may have scaled the constitutional hurdle.

    “Not a few people would hail the constitutional amendment in view of the prostitution of the political system by political parties are ill-equipped to promote participatory democracy, economic freedom, human rights and rule of law.

    “But it ought to be pointed out that the planned de-registration of political parties that fail to win elections is likely to limit the political space to the so called mainstream political parties that are not committed to any political philosophy or ideology”, Falana said.

    Falana, who deplored the opportunism of some political parties, as demonstrated in the last general election, urged INEC to sanitise the democratic space by applying the rules and enforcing relevant provisions of the constitution and the electoral act.

    “INEC is called upon to formulate new guidelines for the registration political parties within the ambit of the Constitution.

    “This should be done in view of the fact that not less than 100 political associations are said to have submitted applications for the registration of new political parties. With respect to registered political parties INEC must fully comply with section 225(2) of the Constitution by sanctioning them if they fail to submit a detailed annual statement and analysis of their sources of funds and assets.

    “This will go a long way to check the monetisation and brazen manipulation of the democratic process by political godfathers.

    “More importantly, INEC should henceforth exercise its powers under Section 224 of the Constitution by ensuring that the programmes as well as the aims and objects of every political party conform with the provisions of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of State Policy enshrined in Chapter II of the Constitution”, Falana said.

  • Atiku will face insurmountable legal obstacles at tribunal – Falana

    Atiku will face insurmountable legal obstacles at tribunal – Falana

    Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has backed the decision of the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the February 23 elections to approach the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal over its outcome.

    Falana however predicted that the former Vice President will face “insurmountable legal obstacles” at the tribunal.

    Falana stated this in a statement he issued on Tuesday, adding that the former Vice-President should not be blackmailed not to take the legal step.

    Falana, who said the calls prevailing on him not to approach the tribunal were uncalled for, recalled that President Muhammadu Buhari had challenged his losses in court in the successive presidential elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011.

    The human rights activist also noted that many All Progressives Congress, APC, members who lost the just-concluded National Assembly elections had announced plans to challenge the return of their opponents by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

    According to Falana, the failure of the successive PDP and APC-led Federal Government to reform the electoral process had created insurmountable legal obstacles for election petitioners.

    He said: “The campaign that Alhaji Atiku Abubakar should not seek redress is totally uncalled for.

    “Aggrieved by the general elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011 conducted by INEC, Candidate Muhammadu Buhari sought redress in court.

    “The chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomole and other APC leaders have had cause to claim their mandate through the court.

    “Even some APC members who lost the just-concluded National Assembly elections have announced plans to challenge the return of their opponents by INEC.

    “Therefore, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar should not be blackmailed or begged by any group of people not to challenge the presidential election held in the country on February 23, 2019.

    “Regrettably, however, the failure of the PDP and APC-led Federal Government to reform the electoral process has created insurmountable legal obstacles for election petitioners.”

    Continuing, Falana said: “the frustration of election petitioners has been compounded by several judicial authorities with some decisions holding that an election cannot be questioned on grounds of corrupt practices”.

    Falana also insisted that any elections had been upheld despite the presence of malfeasance.

    He said: “For instance, a petitioner is required to prove that there is substantial non-compliance and that the non-compliance has substantially affected the results of the election.

    “In Yussuf v Obasanjo, it was held that an election cannot be questioned on grounds of corrupt practices.

    “In Falae v Obasanjo, it was held that it has to be proved that financial inducement was authorised by the winner of an election.

    “In Buhari v Obasanjo, it was held that the onus of proving electoral malpractice rests on the petitioner.

    “Several fraudulent elections have been upheld under the doctrine of substantial compliance.

    “In several cases, winners of fraudulent elections that were annulled were allowed to take part in rerun elections ordered by the courts.”

  • Falana’s law firm sues Femi Gbajabimiala over refusal to pay N20m professional fee

    Falana & Falana Chambers has sued the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila over his alleged refusal to pay N20m professional fee for the legal services which it rendered to the legislator in 2015.

    The law firm owned by human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN), in the writ of summons which was filed before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja and marked CV/1190/19 on Wednesday, stated that it had, to no avail, repeatedly demanded through letters of reminder the payment of its fees from Gbajabiamila since 2015.

    Falana & Falana Chambers through its lawyer, Mrs Funmi Falana, said it filed its suit against Gbajabiamila because he “is not willing to pay the plaintiff the sum of N20m being the plaintiff’s professional fee for representing the defendant in suit Number FHC/ABJ/CS/501/2015.”

    It prayed for among others in its suit, a declaration that Gbajabiamila’s alleged failure to pay the N20m fee was “a breach of contract.”

    It also sought an order compelling the legislator to pay the N20m and another directing him “to pay 10 per cent as interest on the judgement sum from the day the judgement is entered until the final liquidation of the judgement sum.”

    The plaintiff recalled that it, in 2015, defended Gbajabiamila in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/501/2015.

    The suit was filed by the Registered Trustees of Social Justice and Civil Rights Awareness Initiative against Gbajabiamila, the House of Representatives and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

    Recall that the SJCRAI had in the 2015 suit, urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to disqualify Gbajabiamila from contesting the position of the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the grounds of his alleged “conviction” in the State of Georgia, US, for unethical practices in the course of his practice as a lawyer.

    Falana’s law firm stated “that having been briefed” by Gbajabiamila, it swung into action “by filing a memorandum of conditional appearance, a motion on notice for consequential amendment, counter-affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons and notice of preliminary objection.”

    It stated in its statement of claim that then presiding judge, Justice Adamu Abdu-Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja had determined the suit in favour of Gbajabiamila by striking it out on May 22, 2018.

    It added, “It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant (Gbajabiamila) was informed via a letter dated January 24, 2017 that the plaintiff’s professional fee for representing the defendant in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/501/2015 is N20,000,000 (twenty million naira). Copy of the said letter is hereby pleaded and the plaintiff shall rely on same in evidence at the trial of this suit.

    “The plaintiff avers further that his account details were also provided to enable the defendant to pay the said professional fee without any difficulties.”

    It added, “In September 2018, following the final determination of suit FHC/ABJ/CS/501/2015 this firm wrote to the defendant updating him of the progress in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/501/2015 and demanding the payment of his professional fee.”

    It said it also on January 10, 2019, “wrote a letter to the defendant demanding his professional fee.

    “Notwithstanding repeated demands, the defendant has failed to pay the plaintiff’s professional fee without any justification.”

  • Stoning of Buhari, Osinbajo in Ogun is treasonable offence – Falana

    Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) on Wednesday said the stoning of President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo by supporters of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) during last Monday’s campaign of the All Peoples Congress (APC) in Abeokuta was treasonable.

    Falana, while reeacting to the incident, expressed regret that the Police had not arrested anybody in connection with the attack on the President, his Vice and other leaders of the APC.

    He said Governor Ibikunle Amosun of Ogun State could not absolve himself of the blame as the chief security officer of the state.

    Falana regretted that Amosun visited Abuja several times before last Monday’s campaign with the governorship candidate of the APM, Adekunle Akinlade, the President welcomed them to the villa.

    He said the governor ought to have been told long before the campaign that his activities were anti-party.

    The lawyer also blamed the various security agencies in the state for the incident, noting that they did nothing to prevent or stop the attack on the President.

    He said the security agencies, despite knowing that it was APC rally allowed another party and its supporters to infiltrate the venue.

    Falana contended that this ugly situation persisted because Police and other security agencies that should be alive to their responsibilities did nothing about it.

    He recalled that some time ago, supporters of former Oyo state governor, Chief Rasheed Ladoja and Alao Akala clashed and six people died, the Police did not arrest nor prosecute anybody over the incident.

    Falana lamented the spate of disrespect and other acts against the person of the President of the country by the opposition, describing it as an insult against his office.

    He recalled that during presentation of the 2019 budget, when the president was booed by some members of the National Assembly, the only thing he said was that ‘the world is watching’, noting, “here in Abeokuta, he kept quiet and allowed the situation to degenerated”.

    He said when the President was attending rally of the APC, similar incident happened in Port Harcourt, Rivers State and Imo State in particular where the state governor, Chief Rochas Okorocha was campaigning for Alliance for New Nigeria (ANN) gubernatorial candidate, nobody was cautioned.

  • Fight governors who resist payment of N30,000 minimum wage, Falana tells labour

    Fight governors who resist payment of N30,000 minimum wage, Falana tells labour

    Human rights activist Femi Falana (SAN) has called on the organised labour to “fight” any governor who is unwilling to pay the N30,000 minimum wage.

    Speaking at the 12th Quadrennial National Delegates Conference of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) in Abuja, Falana said the first part of the new minimum wage battle had been won; the second is to compel state governments to pay.

    “Labour should unite to fight any governor who may not want to pay the N30,000 minimum wage. States should cut their expenses and engage in income generating ventures.

    “As for the workers, let the general elections be the last time that it will be left for our leaders to decide. Workers should come together. They should be the one to decide,” Falana said.

    The NLC President, Comrade Ayuba Wabba, reiterated the urgency for the need to pass the minimum wage bill by the National Assembly.

    “For millions of workers, an increase in the minimum wage is urgently needed to ensure a living wage that covers the cost of basic needs for a family.

    “Workers must be able to freely bargain collectively through their union for wages that reflect the tone value of the work they do and for decent working conditions.

    “On January 29, this year, the House of Representatives passed into law a new national minimum wage of N30,000. It is expected that upon the passage by the Senate, a conference of the two chambers of the National Assembly will harmonise the bill and send the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Act to Mr. President for signing into law.

    “We appreciate and commend the House of Representative for the expedited action taken on the new national minimum wage bill,” he said.

    Wabba commended the Federal Government for releasing about N1.9 trillion to states for bailout, budget support and Paris club refund.

    He said: “The release of about N1.9 trillion in the form of bailout, budget support and Paris Club Refund assisted greatly in addressing the non-payment of salary, pensions and gratuity in many states especially worker-friendly governors. In some few instances, the funds were diverted and the situation has not been fully addressed.”

    Wabba said the economy given its vast potential, amid diverse challenges, showed some promises in recent times.

    “According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 1.81 per cent in real terms in the third quarter of 2018.

    “This is slightly better than the growth of 1.17 per cent achieved in the third quarter of 2017. The recent GDP growth and increase in internally generated revenue are signs of the steady recovery of our economy from recession. Despite these results, our economy remains largely import driven and dependent. The growth in the size of our economy – the biggest in Africa – is still non-inclusive as the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen. Though described as mixed, our economy is essentially rent-seeking and still suffers from systemic distortions,’’ he said.

  • Falana writes AGF, seeks withdrawal of case against suspended CJN Onnoghen

    A Lagos lawyer and human rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), has urged the Federal Government to withdraw the criminal charges filed against the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen.

    Falana said he made the request having confirmed that a petition had been submitted to the National Judicial Council alleging grave misconduct against Onnoghen.

    In the February 3 letter addressed to the Attorney-General of Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, Falana urged the minister to advise President Muhammadu Buhari to reverse the suspension because a public officer could not be removed from office on the basis of an ex parte order granted by any court or tribunal in Nigeria.

    The letter reads in part, “Since the charge of false declaration of assets was filed against the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal by the Code of Conduct Bureau, I have repeatedly requested you to use your good offices to discontinue the case. My request was anchored on the case of Elelu-Habeeb vs the Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors (2012) 40 WRN 1 where the Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 292 of the Constitution of Nigeria, the head of any of the judicial arm of state and Federal Governments cannot be removed from office without a prior investigation conducted by the National Judicial Council.

    “Having confirmed that you have since submitted a petition to the National Judicial Council alleging grave misconduct against the chief justice, I am compelled to request you, once again, to file a nolle prosequi to discontinue the charge pending against his Lordship at the Code of Conduct Tribunal without any further delay.

    “The charge should not be allowed to hang like a Sword of Damocles on the head of the Chief Justice while he is being investigated by the National Judicial Council. In view of your implicit confidence in the ability of members of the National Judicial Council to resolve the matter, you ought to accede to the request to terminate the proceedings at the Code of Conduct Tribunal forthwith.”

    Falana posited that the withdrawal of the case from the Code of Conduct Tribunal would lead to the immediate vacation of the ex parte order relied upon by the President to justify the illegal suspension of Onnoghen and the appointment of Justice Tanko Mohammad as Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    He said, “Even though by virtue of Paragraph 10 (2) (a) of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Code of Conduct Tribunal is empowered to order any public officer to vacate office, the power cannot be exercised until such a public officer has been tried and convicted for breaching the provisions of the code of conduct for pubic officers.

    “But as a public officer cannot be removed from office on the basis of an ex parte order granted by any court or tribunal in Nigeria, we urge you to advise President Buhari to reverse the suspension of the Chief Justice.

    “Once the suspension is reversed, Justice Walter Onnoghen will then be prevailed upon to resign as the Chief Justice having lost the moral authority to preside over the affairs of the juridical organ of the government of the Federation.”

    He added, “However, if his Lordship does not call it quits or if the National Judicial Council does not recommend his removal from office, you may wish to exercise your powers under Section 174 of the Constitution to prosecute him for failure to declare his assets which is a punishable offence under the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act.”

  • Femi Falana asks Justice Onnoghen to resign

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has asked embattled Justice Walter Onnoghen to quit the bench, following the allegations leveled against him at the code of conduct tribunal.

    Falana made this call on Sunday while featuring as a guest on Channels Television’s Politics Today.

    He said, “The government should as a matter of urgency, lift the suspension on the Chief Justice since the Chief Justice as so much to on his own admitted that he did not declare his assets, he should do the needful by calling it quits”.

    The human right activist said after the suspension has been lifted, the Chief Justice should quit the bench because he has already admitted that he failed in his duty to declare his asset as required by the constitution.

    The Senior Advocate further argued that the Executive and the Judiciary arms of government have failed Nigerians with regards to the case of Justice Walter Onnoghen.

    According to him, it was wrong for President Muhammadu Buhari to have suspended Justice Onnoghen based on an ex parte order of the code of conduct tribunal.

    He said by so doing the President did not follow due process, stressing that the government must learn to obey the rule of law.

    “You can’t fight corruption without following due process,” Falana said.

    The Federal Government on Friday suspended Onnoghen, following the order of Code of Conduct Tribunal on January 23rd.

    The Nigerian government said the suspension stood until the conclusion of Onnoghen’s trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    Following the suspension, President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday swore in acting CJN in the person of Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed from Bauchi State.

    Following the suspension, President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday swore in acting CJN in the person of Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed from Bauchi State.

    He was conveyed to the Presidential Villa at about 4:30pm in a black Mercedes Benz C240 with number plate GWA: 900FA.

    Onnoghen is being tried by the government at the CCT for alleged non-declaration of assets as required by the law.

  • Gridlock: Fashola urges court to dismiss Falana’s suit on Oshodi/Apapa road

    The Minister of Works, Housing and Power, Mr. Babatunde Fashola (SAN), has urged the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to dismiss the fundamental right suit filed by human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN).

    The popular lawyer is challenging the failure of the Federal Government to remove the gridlock on the Apapa-Oshodi expressway.

    In his preliminary objection against the suit, Fashola challenged Falana’s locus standi to file the suit.

    He argued that Falana had not shown that he suffered over and above other motorists or the people using the road.

    The minister contended that the failure to repair the road had not restricted or breached Falana’s freedom of movement.

    In a counter-affidavit deposed to by Ayodele Otedola, a litigation clerk in the ministry on behalf of the minister, Fashola contended that the gridlock on the road “is always caused by tanker drivers who normally follow the route to the Nigerian Port Authority (NPA) for the purpose of loading and offloading their goods”.

    The counter-affidavit stated that the minister’s “effort to clear the road and remove the trailers and tankers has not been easy but that effort has been redoubled to achieve this goal”.

    But Falana, in his fundamental right suit, argued that the state of the road constitutes a threat to his life and is a violation of his fundamental right to move freely in Lagos, as guaranteed by sections 33 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and articles 5 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

    He is seeking the following reliefs:

    “A declaration that the refusal or failure of the respondents to remove obstructions, repair and maintain the Oshodi-Apapa Expressway is illegal and unconstitutional as it constitutes a threat to the fundamental right to life of the applicant guaranteed by Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.”

    Falana prayed the court for a declaration that the failure or refusal of the respondents to make the Oshodi-Apapa Expressway safe for motorists is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates the applicant’s fundamental right to freedom of movement guaranteed by Section 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, and Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

  • ASUU Strike: FG wrong on application of ‘no work, no pay’ rule – Falana

    ASUU Strike: FG wrong on application of ‘no work, no pay’ rule – Falana

    Human rights activist and lawyer, Femi Falana, has said the ”no work, no pay ” policy by the federal government, is not applicable to members of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) who are currently on strike.

    Falana said the federal government acting through the National Universities Commission (NUC) lacks the powers to direct vice-chancellors to seize the salaries and allowances of striking lecturers.

    The union embarked on strike about a month ago over the poor funding of Nigerian universities, an alleged plan by the federal government to increase students’ fees and introduce an education bank, as well as non-implementation of previous agreements.

    The federal government on November 29 directed all vice-chancellors of federal universities to ensure that members of ASUU who are currently on strike are not paid their salaries.

    The directive was contained in a letter issued by the NUC.

    In the circular, government threatened that “the payment of salaries and allowances to staff on strike from whatever source of funds shall be viewed as a violation of extant rules and directive of the Federal Government”

    But Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said the government was not properly advised for “resorting to a desperate measure of not paying the workers.”

    The lawyer stated this in a statement he personally signed and released titled: “No work no pay’ policy is not applicable to ASUU” on Sunday.

    According to Falana, the federal government referred to “extant rules” to justify the ‘no work, no pay’ policy; a directive anchored on section 43 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act which provides that “any worker who takes part in a strike shall not be entitled to any wages or other remuneration for the period of the strike.”

    ”Otherwise, it would have realised that even under the defunct military junta the application of ‘no work no pay’ rule, threat to eject lecturers living in official quarters, promulgation of a decree which made strike in schools a treasonable offence and the proscription of ASUU did not collapse any of the strikes called by ASUU,” he said.

    He said the latest strike has complied with the provisions of section 31 (6) of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2005.

    He said the law does not punish acts which are lawful in any democratic society.

    He said section 43(1) of the Trade Disputes Act cannot be invoked to justify the seizure of the salaries and allowances of members of the ASUU who have decided to participate in an industrial action that is legal in every material particular.

    ”For the avoidance of doubt, section 31 (7) of the Trade Disputes Amendment Act provides that anyone who takes part in an illegal strike commits an offence and is liable upon conviction to a fine of N10,000 or six months imprisonment or to both fine and imprisonment,” Falana said further in his explanation.

    He also cited the University of Ilorin case where the appointments of 49 lecturers were terminated on the grounds that they had taken part in the ASUU strike of 2001.

    Falana said: ”in setting aside the termination of the appointments, the federal high court held that the appellants were entitled to their salaries and allowances.

    ”Convinced that section 43 (1) of the Trade Disputes Act is self-executory, the Court of Appeal held that the order for the reinstatement of the respondents and for payment of their salaries and allowances when they were on strike was not only illegal but inequitable,” he said.

    But Falana said the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the order of the federal high court for the reinstatement of the appellants and payment of their salaries and allowances.

    He said the implication of the judgment is that a university lecturer “whose employment enjoys statutory favour cannot be disciplined or sanctioned without being afforded the right of fair hearing by the Governing Council.”

    ”With respect to the current ASUU strike, no university governing council has accused any lecturer of misconduct to warrant the seizure of salaries and allowances,” he said.

    He urged the government to commit itself to the faithful implementation of the 2017 FG/ASUU Agreement to enable ASUU call off the strike without any further delay.