The Presiding Judge, Enugu Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe, has again struck down POPA for being roundly illegal, null, void and unconstitutional.
Justice Arowosegbe held that the National Industrial Court cannot be subject to the procedural laws contained in any general statutes as to the conditions precedent to institute actions in the NIC, once the NIC has substantive constitutional jurisdiction over the matter.
Justice Arowosegbe ruled that the NIC has no jurisdiction to apply the POPA, by virtue of S. 254C-(1)(b) of the Constitution, which gives the Court exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply only statutes “relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace”, that the POPA being a general law that seeks to protect public authorities/officers generally against the whole world, including victim-public officers and private citizens alike, does not relate to employment relations but to all actions of public officers/authorities.
The Court held that the absolute ban on any suit filed outside the three months sanctioned by S. 2(a) of the POPA, without room for the court’s discretion to extend time in deserving cases, is an affront to Art 8(3) of the ILO C158 and Ss. 4-14 of the TDA.
The Court reasoned that because labour law deals with socioeconomic issues, it cannot afford to be tied to the rigmaroles of the technicalities of the pre-action notices. And more importantly so, speed and efficiency are the reason d’etre of industrial courts all over the world.
From facts, the claimant, Dr Eze, is seeking a declaration that his suspension and termination of his appointment are unlawful, among others.
The defendants- Federal Polytechnic Ohodo and 3 others raised preliminary objections against the Court’s jurisdiction, and Dr Eze subsequently filed a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction to which the defendants reacted by filing both Counter Affidavit and Notice of Preliminary Objection.
The learned counsel averred that Dr Eze’s appointment was terminated on January 8, 2025, while this suit was filed on June 26, 2025, and the 2nd-4th defendants were members of the GC. Counsel placed great emphasis on Anolam v. FUTO delivered in (2025) by the Supreme Court that the Public Officers Protection Act [POPA] applied to public employments, and that the 1st defendant is non-juristic, agents of principals cannot be sued, and the action is improperly constituted, while a pre-action notice was not issued.
In opposition, the learned counsel argued that the POPA, contrary to the submissions of the learned defendants’ counsel, does not apply to contracts of public employment and that all the authorities cited by the opposition are irrelevant to the cause of action herein.
Dr Eze also filed a motion on notice and sought an interlocutory order of injunction staying all actions arising from the publication made by Federal Polytechnic Ohodo and 3 others on July 21, 2025, as it affects the office of the Bursar of the Federal Polytechnic Ohodo, which is the subject of the suit, pending the determination of the suit.
The learned counsel argued that the Polytechnic’s action in advertising for filing, Dr Eze’s position, a position into which Dr Eze wants reinstatement, after the suit was served on the 1st defendant, was wrong, as it would make the Court’s judgment a nullity if the suit were decided in the claimant’s favour.
In reply, the Federal Polytechnic Ohodo and 3 others counsel argued that the GC, which is not a party to the suit, has the sole right to appoint and remove the Bursar/Librarian and that; the 2nd-4th defendants have not done any advert for the replacement of any staff, while the defendants denied foisting a fait accompli on the court because they have not interfered in any judicial process.
In its consolidated ruling, the presiding Judge, Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe held that the suit is not statute barred and elucidated that the causes of action in the three cases delivered by Supreme Court on POPA arose before the Third Alteration Act and were decided on the state of the law, as applicable before the Third Alteration Act, and more importantly, the actions leading to these authorities were not filed in the NIC, which had the primary jurisdiction over the Third Alteration Act.
Justice Arowosegbe held that the Supreme Court earlier decisions on POPA did not considered the effects of the S. 254C-(1)(b), (f)-(h) & (2) of the Constitution; the domesticated African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Application and Enforcement) Act [ACHPRA] and, the Nigerian ratified International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR].
Citing Supreme Court decision on how to distinguish precedents, Justice Arowosegbe held that in the instance case, the cause of action arose under the currency of the Third Alteration Act and being an industrial relations matter, the case was filed at the NIC, and the POPA was pleaded in limine as impacting it, the validity of the POPA must per force be decided under the auspices of the Third Alteration Act; the ICESCR and the ACHPRA.
“In fact, there is no better testimony of the sui generis that the modern Nigerian employment jurisprudence has become than the very constitutionally establishment NIC as a specialised superior court of record with specialist judges to solely cater for its sui generis subject matter. Hence, if the POPA was not applicable to the special private contracts because they were freely negotiated, the Constitution now gives all contracts of employment better terms and conditions of employment that are compulsory in favour of workers, such that they are simply sui generis and as such, subject only to their own sui generis laws, conventions, rules and practices and as such, they are no longer subject to any general procedural law like the POPA.
“Such is the potency of doctrine of sui generis that the Supreme Court held that, even the general civil procedure rules of the FHC itself and the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act [SCPA] are not applicable to the adjudication of admiralty matters in the FHC, but the specialised procedures outlined in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act [AJA] and the international conventions relating to admiralty.
“Such is the gargantuan number of ILO ILS that Breen Creighton [supra] observed that as at Jun 2003, ILO has created 379 formal instruments containing ILS in excess of 5,000 specific standards. It is doubtful whether there is any other subject with more international legal instruments/standards than labour relations, and all these apply to the adjudication of industrial relations disputes in Nigeria.
“The fact that negotiation was used as a bait to trick the victim into not filing action within time in order to take undue advantage of the POPA, matters under S. 254C-(1)(f) of the Constitution, as an instance of unfair labour practice, and breach of good faith, a doctrine the labour courts around the world has elevated to fundamental employment right, to bring fairness into labour relations. This makes the POPA unconstitutional and therefore, liable to be struck down.
“In this wise, the absolute ban on any suit filed outside the three months sanctioned by S. 2(a) of the POPA without room for the court’s discretion to extend time in deserving cases, is an affront to Art 8(3) of the ILO C158 and SS. 4-14 of the TDA. And, being that this is a constitutionally sanctioned labour convention, the POPA cannot therefore compete with it – S. 1(1)&(2) of the Constitution and Geepee [supra] and therefore, the POPA is void, apart from being inapplicable to the sui generis contracts of employment, being a general statute not specifically enacted for employment relations but generally for the protection of public officers against suits for their acts and omissions against the whole world at large.” Justice Arowosegbe