FG counters ASUU’s objection to substantive suit on strike

By Ukpono Ukpong

The Federal Government has filed processes at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), challenging the preliminary objection of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to the substantive suit on its suspended indefinite strike.

The counsel to the Federal Government (claimants), James Igwe, disclosed this yesterday when the matter came up at the Abuja Division of the NICN.

Recall that based on a referral made to the NICN by the Minister of Labour and Employment, Sen. Chris Ngige, the vacation judge, Justice Polycarp Hamman, earlier issued an interlocutory order, restraining members of ASUU from continuing with their indefinite strike.

The order in suit no: NICN/ABJ/270/2022 was upheld by the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which also ordered ASUU to immediately enter their defence on the substantive suit, as ordered by Justice Hamman, before remitting the matter back to the President of the NICN.

However, when both parties appeared before the President of the NICN, Justice Benedict Kanyip, Igwe told the court that the defendants filed a preliminary objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the substantive suit.

He said the government filed a counter affidavit and written addresses, challenging the defendant’s preliminary objection.

The counsel to ASUU, Femi Falana who joined virtually, did not object to the processes filed by the Federal Government.

Kehinde Oyewumi who appeared for the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), told the court that his clients filed an application, seeking to be joined as a party in the substantive suit.

After listening to preliminary objection as properly filed and adjourned the matter to December 13, 2022 for hearing of the preliminary all the parties, Justice Kanyip deemed the processes of the claimants, challenging the objection.

Justice Kanyip also adjourned further proceedings on three other cases related to the dispute between ASUU and the Federal Government to the same date.

They include suit no: NICN/ABJ/303/2022-ASUU vs. Minister of Labour and Employment and Registrar of Trade Union, challenging alleged threat by the Federal Government to withdraw ASUU’s certificate of registration, and suit no: NICN/ABJ/269/2022-SERAP vs. the President, the Minister of Labour and others, asking the court to set aside the referral based on the agreements in existence and to enforce their rights. The Federal Government filed a preliminary objection to the suit by SERAP on the grounds that it is incompetent.

The fourth case: suit no: NICN/ABJ/336/2022-ASUU vs. the Minister of Labour and four others was adjourned when the court discovered that one of the parties was not served. The suit is asking the court to withdraw the certificates of registration of the two newly registered trade unions- the Congress of Nigerian University Academics (CONUA) and the National Association of Medical and Dental Academics (NAMDA).

Justice Kanyip had in the course of proceedings in the matter discovered that the two unions were served through the office of the Minister of Labour and Employment and demanded for an explanation from counsel to ASUU, Femi Falana who was represented virtually by Marshal Abubakar.

Marshal told the court that they didn’t know the unions existed, until they heard the announcement of their registration from the Minister of Labour and Employment.

Justice Kanyip responded: “If you didn’t know that they existed, are you supposed to be here. You should go and look for where to serve them. It was only during the military era that orders made on the radio were deemed to be law. You are looking for a declaratory order and it should be on the strength of your case and not the weakness of the defence. If you want the withdrawal of the certificate of registration, have you exhibited it? From what I have here, your exhibit 1 is breaking news from the internet. Is it a certificate of registration? According to the Trade Union Act, you are first listed as a trade union and subsequently issued a certificated.

The apparently infuriated judge adjourned the matter to the same date as others, saying that there must be evidence that all the parties were served before further proceedings on the matter.