By Straightnews
The Chairman of the Board of the Niger Delta Development Commission, NDDC, Mr Chiedu Ebie, is in dire straits over an alleged wrongful appointment.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday fixed October 31, to deliver a ruling as well as judgment in a suit seeking the sack of Ebie.
This came shortly after parties in the suit adopted their written addresses as their arguments for and against the originating summons.
Some Niger Delta communities had sued President Bola Tinubu, for allegedly violating the NDDC’s Act by appointing Ebie as NDDC.
Related news
- Senator Indicts Works Ministry and NDDC on East-West Road Delay
- Reps livid as NDDC Contractor Abandons project After getting N1.6b Mobilisation in Akwa Ibom
- Two Akwa Ibom sons, 15 others make NDDC Board
The plaintiffs from Bayelsa and Delta States communities had told the court that Ebie was not qualified to occupy the seat of Board Chairman having not come from, “the oil-producing area with the highest quantum of oil production”.
Those who filed the suit include; Chief Goodnews Gereghewei, Chief Eddy Brayei and Mr Jonah Engineyouwei.
They sued on behalf of themselves and Bisangbene, Agge and Amatu1 communities in Ekeremor Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
President Tinubu, Senate President, Attorney-General of the Federation, NDDC and Ebie are 1st to 5th respondents respectively.
Meanwhile, Jerry Mulade-Aroh representing Gbaramatu Kingdom; Mr Jolomi Itsekure, representing Itsekiri Oil and Gas producing communities and Friday Ugedi, representing Egbema Kingdom all in Delta also sought to be joined as plaintiffs in the suit.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, plaintiffs through their lawyer Mr Egberipou Sotonye Barakemi, urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by President Tinubu and the AGF, adding that the court should dismiss the entire case of all the respondents for lacking in merit.
Mrs Maimuna Lami Ashiru, representing President Tinubu and the AGF, Umaru Jibril, representing the National Assembly and Emmanuel Akumaye, representing NDDC and Ebie, in their respective reply urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
After listening to all parties, Justice Abdulmalik announced that ruling in the preliminary objection to the suit as well as her judgement in the main suit would be delivered on October 31, this year.
In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2024, and filed January 11, 2024, the plaintiffs claimed that both President Tinubu and the National Assembly contravened the NDDC Act by screening and appointing Ebie Chiedu as NDDC Board Chairman.
They submitted that although Ebie is from an oil-producing State, he was however not qualified for appointment as board chairman because he was not from the highest oil-producing areas.
In the affidavit deposed in support of the suit, the plaintiffs averred that Ebie’s appointment “was done in error and is against the clear provisions of the law.
“That the screening and confirmation of the 5th defendant by the Nigerian Senate was also done in error and was against the clear provisions of the law.
“That as a result of the facts above and in particular the facts in paragraphs 2 – 11, the appointment of the 5th defendant is null, void and of no effect”.
The plaintiffs through their lawyer, B. B. Abalaba, had asked the court to determine whether Ebie who is from a community with minimal oil production is qualifed to be the chairman of the 4th defendant (Niger Delta Development Commission)?
Other issues raised for determination are: Whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not in contravention of the NDDC Act.
“Whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not Illegal null and void?
They therefore prayed the court for an order “setting aside the appointment of the 5th defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant by the 1st defendant.
“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from assuming office or in any way acting as the chairman of the 4th defendant.
“An order of injunction restraining the 4th defendant from recognizing the 5th defendant as its chairman or allowing him access into its premises for the purpose of beginning or continuing work as its chairman.
“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from holding himself out as the chairman of the 4th defendant”.
