The Presiding Judge, Ibadan Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Dele Peters has dismissed the allegation of unlawful appointment termination claim filed by the former Chairman, Secretary and Members of Obokun Local Government Education Authority (Board), Chief Owoeye Abiodun and 6 others against Osun State Government, Its Attorney General and 4 others for lacking merit.
The Court held that the law (Osun State Universal Basic Education Law, 2017) upon which Chief Owoeye Abiodun and 6 others founded their claims was made by an unknown and non-existing State of Osun House of Assembly, that what the Constitution created and empowered to make law is Osun State House of Assembly and not the State of Osun House of Assembly.
Justice Dele Peters ruled that any law allegedly made by such an illegal and unconstitutional institution whether it is called the State of Osun House of Assembly or any other name is illegal, null, void and unconstitutional.
From facts, the claimant- Chief Owoeye Abiodun and 6 others had sought a declaration that the purported dissolution of Obokun Local Government by the Osun State Government sometime on 29th November 2022 is wrongful and not in accordance with the provisions of the enabling law (the Universal Basic Education Authority Law, 2017) of Osun State and as such illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
Likewise, an order directing the Osun State Government, Its Attorney General and 4 others to effect immediate payment of their Salaries’ Arrears from November 2022 to April 2024.
Chief Owoeye Abiodun and 6 others stated that they resumed office immediately following their appointments between May and November 2020 and were given copies of the Law that established the Local Government Education Authority and the termination of their appointments were done against the law of the state.
Counsel submitted that his clients can only be removed from office by the Governor for inability to discharge the functions of office whether arising from infirmity of mind or for any fraudulent act or misconduct and that the Governor does not reserve the right to terminate their appointment at will because they do not hold their appointments at the pleasure of the Governor.
In Defense, the Defendants- Osun State Government, Its Attorney General and 4 others averred that the appointments of Chief Owoeye Abiodun and 6 others were not on qualifications but political due to the gratification of the immediate past State Governor.
Furthermore, the Osun State Government filed an objection and submitted that Chief Owoeye and 6 others’ reliance on a non-existing law robbed the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the action, that the State House of Assembly lack vies to self-transmute themselves to the State of Osun House of Assembly as such would be void.
In opposition, the Counsel prayed the Court to discountenance the preliminary objection of the Defendants and determine the suit on the merit.
Delivering judgment after thorough evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the presiding Judge, Justice Dele Peters declined the Court’s jurisdiction to determine the case and stated that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended only created and recognized Osun State, and a House of Assembly and conferred with legislative powers to make laws for the governance and administration of the geographical entity created by the Constitution and known as Osun State that any other body or institution created by executive fiat by whatever name so-called and under whatsoever guise to make law is nothing short of aberration, illegal and unconstitutional.
Justice Dele Peters ruled that any law allegedly made by such an illegal and unconstitutional institution whether it is called the State of Osun House of Assembly or any other name is illegal, null, void and unconstitutional.
However, Justice Dele Peters held without necessarily conceding that the Court has the requisite jurisdiction to determine the case on the merit that the appointment of Chief Owoeye and 6 others were not made pursuant to any legislation and cannot take advantage or any statutory protection respecting their disengagement.
