He also alleged that his dismissal was linked to whistleblowing petitions he submitted against JAMB’s Registrar, Is-haq Oloyede, and other officials, accusing them of corruption and procurement irregularities.
The National Industrial Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by a former deputy director of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Yisa Usman, challenging his dismissal from service and the disciplinary process that led to his removal.
The judge ruled that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations, stressing that he could not rely on perceived weaknesses in the defence to succeed.
“…the claimant has failed to prove his case,” the court ruled.
“Consequently, he is not entitled to the declarations he is seeking in reliefs 1, 2, and 3. They fail and are hereby refused. The declarations having failed, the ancillary orders sought in reliefs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 must also fail having no foundation.”
Mr Usman, a former deputy director in JAMB’s finance department, was dismissed in July 2023 after disciplinary proceedings initiated by the board. He had argued that the Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee (DSDC) that investigated him was improperly constituted and lacked authority in the absence of a governing board.
He also alleged that his dismissal was linked to whistleblowing petitions he submitted against JAMB’s Registrar, Is-haq Oloyede, and other officials, accusing them of corruption and procurement irregularities.
The petitions were sent to agencies including the EFCC, ICPC, the Office of the Head of Service, and the Federal Ministry of Education.
However, JAMB maintained that those petitions were investigated by relevant authorities and found to be unfounded.
According to court records, JAMB issued Mr Usman queries over allegations bordering on the unauthorised disclosure of official information and other acts considered misconduct.
After he responded to the queries, the board invited him through a letter dated 15 May 2023 to appear before its Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee for further investigation.
In his response dated 17 May 2023, he challenged the committee’s composition, arguing that some members were officials against whom he had previously filed petitions alleging procurement, financial, and administrative infractions.
He maintained that he could not receive a fair hearing before such a panel. He also cited health challenges and submitted medical reports to support his inability to attend the proceedings.
JAMB proceeded with the disciplinary process and, on 3 July 2023, issued him a dismissal letter conveying ministerial approval of the committee’s recommendations.
In September 2023, the former JAMB director approached the National Industrial Court seeking nine reliefs, including declarations that the constitution of the disciplinary committee did not comply with JAMB’s staff manual and conditions of service, a declaration that the composition of the disciplinary committee was unconstitutional because it could not guarantee him a fair hearing, and a declaration that his dismissal without consideration of the committee’s report by JAMB’s governing board was unlawful.
Mr Usman, therefore, asked the court for orders setting aside his dismissal, reinstating him to his position with full entitlements, and directing JAMB to pay all salaries, allowances, and benefits due to him.
He also asked the court to order JAMB to promote him to the position of Director of Finance and Accounts, on the grounds that he was the most senior and qualified officer in the finance department.
He argued that JAMB lacked the authority to discipline or dismiss him without a governing board, and that only a properly constituted board could exercise such powers.
He further alleged that the composition of the disciplinary committee denied him a fair hearing because some members were allegedly beneficiaries of infractions he had exposed through petitions.
In its defence, JAMB argued that Mr Usman was dismissed for serious misconduct and insubordination, after a ministerial approval of the disciplinary committee’s report.
It noted that in the absence of a governing board, ministerial directives and approvals validly guided its operations and disciplinary procedures.
JAMB told the court that its disciplinary committee considered his written responses to allegations against him but that he repeatedly refused to appear before the committee despite being formally invited.
“The defendant (JAMB) stated that the queries issued to the claimant were a fallout of the petitions written by the claimant and his proxies to the Federal Ministry of Education, and an investigative committee was set up where the board was cleared and was directed to subject the claimant to the disciplinary process,” parts of the ruling read.
“The defendant stated that the governing board approved the composition of the disciplinary committee, and that it supersedes the provisions of paragraph 3.5.4 of the staff manual. The defendant averred that the claimant was invited to appear before the Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee slated for 19 May 2023 to speak to his responses to the queries, and that the notice of invitation was sufficient.
“The Defendant stated that there was no board at that time; and that the Federal Ministry of Education, being the supervising ministry and therefore eligible to sit in the proceedings of the committee, was included. The Registrar and Director of Finance recused themselves from the disciplinary meeting.”
JAMB also maintained that Mr Usman’s complaints and petitions had been investigated by anti-corruption and other government agencies and were found to be unfounded, and the officials he accused were exonerated.
In his ruling, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that JAMB validly constituted the disciplinary committee and acted within its powers in disciplining and dismissing the claimant.
The court found that the absence of a governing board did not render the disciplinary process invalid, noting that ministerial approvals and directives could lawfully fill the gap pending the constitution of a board.
“From the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that the misconduct of the claimant is grave and weighty. He wilfully disobeyed constituted authority. This has eroded and undermined the confidence reposed in him by the defendant to carry out his duties,” the judge said.
The judge also held that Mr Usman was accorded a fair hearing throughout the disciplinary proceedings and that there was no evidence that the committee was biased against him.
