Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the Abuja Division of the National Industrial Court (NIC), yesterday ordered the immediate reinstatement of Ambassador Mohammed Dauda of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA).
Although Dauda was sacked as acting Director-General of the agency, the judge ordered that he be reinstated as the substantive Director General of the agency.
NIA by a letter dated March 6, 2018, had relieved the then acting DG of his appointment with the agency.
Dissatisfied, Dauda had approached the court via an originating summons to challenge his sack by the NIA.
In the suit marked: NICN/ABJ/136/2018 and filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), are the Director- General and NIA as first and second defendants respectively.
Among other things, the complainant asked the court to determine whether the procedure adopted by the defendants in the case leading to his purported dismissal is in compliance with Article 8(1) and (2) of the National Securities Agency Act (CAPS 278) 1986.
He also asked the court to determine whether the purported letter of his dismissal issued on March 6, 2018 is not unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
He said if the above questions were answered in the affirmative then the court should make an order reinstating him as director.
He also prayed the court for another order directing the payment of his salaries and other entitlements from the date of his unlawful dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.
However, Justice Anuwe in his judgment agreed that the claimant was unlawfully removed from office and consequently granted all his reliefs sought.
According to the judge, Duada’s dismissal as a director in the agency was illegal, null and void and ordered and ought to be set aside.
Justice Anuwe subsequently ordered that he be immediately reinstated to office as substantive Director General.
The judge further ordered that Dauda be paid his full salaries and entitlements from the date of his dismissal to his date of reinstatement.
The court also awarded the cost one million against the defendants.