A retired Brigadier-General has filed a lawsuit against the Nigerian Army over his forced and compulsory retirement from service.
Brig.-Gen, Abubakar Sa’as, on Tuesday dragged the Army before the National Industrial Court, Abuja, challenging the action of the military.
Other co-defendants in the suit include the Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Defence Staff, Minister of Defence and the Nigerian Army Council.
ICYMI: Governor Umahi of Ebonyi Defects to APC
The claimant Sa’ad, is seeking the court to declare his purported compulsory retirement on June 9, 2016 as null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
He also insists that the action of the Army is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Armed Forces Act Cap A20 LFN 2004, the Nigerian Armed Forces Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service 2012 and the Manual of Military Law 2015.
Sa’ad also prays the court for an order to set aside the purported compulsory retirement and compel the defendants to reinstate him as an officer of the Nigerian Army with all the rights, privileges and perquisites attendant of his status as a Brigadier General of the Nigerian Army or such next rank which he claimed is entitled to assume in all its ramification.
In his Statement of Facts, Sa’ad revealed he was commissioned on Dec 20,1986 as a member of the regular course 35, and was compulsorily retired on June 9, 2016 after 32 just years of service.
Sa’ad wondered why he was forced into retirement when he had not attained the mandatory age of 60 years for retirement, neither had he spent 35 years as stipulated by the defendant’s governing laws.
The claimant’s counsel, Mohammed Adelogun, informed the court that the matter was first filed on September 7, 2016, but was however struck out on Sept. 16, 2017 in a ruling.
According to the counsel, the claimant appealed the ruling at the Appeal Court in 2018 and in a ruling delivered on June 18,2020 set aside the ruling of the trial court.
He equally informed the court that they had been served with another preliminary objection by the defence stating lack of jurisdiction as the case had already been decided.
The defence counsel, Timileyin Kehinde also affirmed that the claimant’s counsel had been served the preliminary objection, however were yet to receive their response.
However, the judge, Justice Benedict Kanyip, in his ruling said that the claimant’s counsel needed to adopt the procedures that would allow the court to take the preliminary objection together with the substantiative suit.
Kanyip also adjourned the matter until Nov.24, for hearing of the preliminary objection.
