The ECOWAS Court of Justice has awarded 2 million naira as compensation to a former staff of ECOWAS Commission for the unlawful termination of his appointment.

The Court also ordered the ECOWAS Commission to pay the accrued salaries and benefits from the date of termination of appointment of Mr Suleiman Muhammad Hussaini till the date of this judgment.

The Commission was also ordered to submit to the Court within two months of notification of the judgment, a report on measures taken to implement the judgment.

Justice Edward Amoako Asante, judge rapporteur who delivered the judgment, dismissed Mr Hussaini’s request for reinstatement to his former position as well as other reliefs of the former staff and the Commission. The Court also ordered both parties to bear their costs.

In the initiating application ECW/CCJ/APP/22/19 filed on 13 May 2019 through his lawyer, Mr Kolawole Olowookere, the Applicant alleged that the ECOWAS Commission and its president breached the provisions of its Staff Regulations by the termination of his appointment.

He also alleged that they violated his rights to fair hearing, to have his cause heard, to the presumption of innocence, equality before the law and equal protection of the law as well as dignity of the human person, enjoyment of rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the ECOWAS Staff Regulations, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

Mr Olowookere told the Court that Mr Hussaini was recruited through a competitive process as a controller under the office of the financial controller of ECOWAS Commission for a one-year probation after which he received an excellent evaluation but was denied a job confirmation letter unlike his colleagues who were issued confirmation letters.

He added that upon enquiry, Mr Hussaini was informed his name was omitted from the list of confirmed staff as a result of his indictment in a financial malpractices report submitted to the Commission by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency – Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

He said although Hussaini was invited by EFCC to explain the installmental payments he made to his boss’ account on his instruction for the purchase of plots of land, the Commission neither issued him a letter notifying him of the indictment nor invited him to defend himself of the allegations. Moreover, he was not requested to face any disciplinary committee in accordance with the provisions of the ECOWAS Staff Regulations and the ECOWAS Revised Treaty.

He therefore asked the Court to, among others, declare the dismissal null and void; order his reinstatement and order the payment of his outstanding salaries and allowances till date and payment of 1 million USD for the violation of his rights.

But the lawyer to the Commission, Mr Eric Ibe, filed a preliminary objection on 7 June 2019 challenging the competence of the Court to hear the case which he said had been struck out but presently relisted based on an application by Mr Hussaini, contrary to the provision of Article 73 of the rules of the Court.

In a counter reply, Mr Olowookere told the Court that the earlier case was struck out without hearing of the substantive matter and therefore qualified to be relisted in the interest of justice in line with Article 73 of the rules of the Court.

Article 73 of the Rules of the Court states, “If the applicant informs the court in writing that he wishes to discontinue the proceeding, the President shall order the case to be removed from the register and shall give a decision as to costs in accordance with Article 66(8) of these rules”

In its analysis, the Court held that striking out of a case from the register of the Court does not deprive the Applicant of his right to re-litigate the issue if necessary, adding that the Court admitted the matter based on lack of evidence of any previous order made by the Court “relative to future actions on the same subject matter”.

The Court dismissed the objection raised by the ECOWAS Commission challenging its competence to admit the present case and directed it to file its defence.

In its statement of defence, Mr Ibe said the ECOWAS Commission met the requirements for the termination of Mr Hussaini’s appointment.

Relying on the provisions of the Principles of Staff Employment, he said the ECOWAS Commission found Mr Hussaini’s conduct/performance unsatisfactory and his moral behavior detrimental to the reputation of the institution which forced the Commission to conclude that his services were no longer needed and acted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the appointment and promotion of professional staff of the Commission.

He added that the provisions of the ECOWAS Staff Regulations cited by the applicant did not apply to the termination of Hussaini’s appointment but relate to disciplinary board, disciplinary procedures and offenses punishable by sanctions.

He said that Hussaini’s letter of termination of appointment stated reasons for the decision as required by the Principles of Staff Employment and that it also relied on the interim investigative report and progress report of Nigeria’s anti-graft agency (EFCC).

He asked the Court to dismiss Hussaini’s application for lack of merit and direct him to pay 40,000 USD as cost (of litigation).

However, the Court noted among others that ECOWAS Commission failed to notify Hussaini in writing of “any inadequacies observed” in his performance during probation as required, did not give him opportunity to respond to the allegations and did not observe other procedures required under the ECOWAS Staff Regulations.

Other judges on the panel were Justices Dupe Atoki, and Januaria Costa.