INTRODUCTION
The special and unique nature of employment law often appears to be a challenge to both employers and employees, and it is more pronounced in cases of public service, as it is governed under a distinct pattern and expectation. The recent judgment in Obidah Ibrahim Dakat v. The Federal Road Safety Commission & Ors provides a profound and unequivocal clarification on the sanctity of statutory employment. This case examines the critical question of whether an employer can dismiss an employee whose employment is governed by statute without strict adherence to the prescribed legal and procedural framework, particularly where the stated reason for termination is merely that "services are no longer required." The court's decision serves as a powerful reminder of the fundamental principles of due process and the legal protections afforded to public servants.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Obidah Ibrahim Dakat (the Claimant) was employed by the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) and its associated entities (the Defendants) in 2004 and received several promotions over fifteen years. On December 13, 2019, his appointment was terminated by a letter stating, "his services are no longer required". The Claimant contended that his termination was unlawful because the Defendants failed to follow the statutory procedures outlined in their regulations, specifically the Federal Road Safety Corps Regulation on Maintenance of Discipline, 2013 (Exhibit C6). The Defendants, however, maintained that the termination was properly carried out after the Claimant was found guilty of scandalous conduct unbecoming of their staff, following criminal allegations and a disciplinary panel's recommendation. The alleged misconduct involved the theft of an ATM card and a withdrawal of N150,000 from a colleague's account.
The Claimant's Submission
The Claimant argued that his termination was unlawful, null, and void because it violated the laws, rules, and guidelines governing his employment. He asserted that his employment had a statutory character, governed by the Federal Road Safety Corps (Establishment) Act, the Public Service Rules, and the Corps Regulation on Maintenance of Discipline. He contended that the Defendants failed to adhere to the prescribed statutory procedures, including providing one month's notice, and that neither the regulations nor the FRSC Act permits termination without cause or on the ground that "service is not required". He denied the allegations of misconduct, claiming he was not on duty when the alleged theft occurred, and that he was detained, tortured, and coerced by the police into signing cheques. The Claimant also stated that the disciplinary panel created against him was without due process and that he was never notified of its findings. The Claimant's counsel further submitted that the court should only consider the reasons stated in the termination letter (Exhibit C7), which exclusively cited "services no longer required," and that the 2013 Discipline Regulation (Exhibit C6) had no provision for such a reason.
The Case of the Defendant
The Defendants maintained that the termination was carried out correctly following the Claimant's finding of guilt for scandalous conduct and gross misconduct. They argued that they fully complied with the Establishment Act and relevant regulations, dealing swiftly with allegations of scandalous behaviour to prevent contagion. They denied retroactive termination, explaining that the disciplinary panel's recommendation was approved before communication. Defence counsel argued that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving unlawful termination, citing Exhibit D4 (the disciplinary panel's record) as evidence of a formal investigation. They also highlighted inconsistencies in the Claimant's testimony, such as his denial of receipt of a query (Exhibit D1) in his pleadings, which he later admitted to under cross-examination. The Defendants asserted an employer's unfettered authority to terminate employment with or without stating reasons, citing LIGHTENING NETWORKS LIMITED v. AUTA NYADA & ORS (2023) LPELR-61010 (CA). They also contended that the 2018 Discipline Regulation, not the 2013 Regulation (Exhibit C6), governed the Claimant's 2019 termination. Furthermore, they challenged the admissibility of Exhibit C10 (medical report) as an uncertified public document.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Court framed the sole issue as whether the Claimant had made out his case and was entitled to the reliefs sought. The court found that the Claimant's employment held a statutory character, meaning his hiring and termination must strictly adhere to statutory and regulatory procedures. The court overruled the Defendants' objections to the admissibility of Exhibit C6 (2013 Regulation) and Exhibit C10 (medical report), clarifying that the former was relevant regardless of whether defendants relied on it, and the latter was not a public document requiring certification.
The flawed termination letter disciplinary procedure
Importantly, the court found that the termination letter only stated, "services are no longer required" and made no mention of any disciplinary panel findings or misconduct as justification. The court emphasised that it must limit its examination of the termination's lawfulness to the contents of this letter. Importing the disciplinary panel's recommendation would constitute unwarranted speculation, as it was merely advisory in nature. The court also noted that the "services no longer required" reason was improper and unacceptable under the statutory framework governing the Claimant's employment, and the 2013 Regulation, which was the only relevant disciplinary rule properly before the court, contained no such provision.
The court found that the Defendants breached the 2013 Corps Regulation on Maintenance of Discipline by failing to provide the Claimant with a formal written notice of precise allegations, an opportunity to answer, and the right to counsel. Even if the 2018 Regulations had applied, they were substantively identical and also lacked a provision for termination on the grounds of "services no longer required". Therefore, the termination was declared wrongful, unlawful, null, and void.
The court in its ruling expanded on the following principles of Law:
- Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings: In civil proceedings, the claimant bears the burden of proof and must establish their case on the strength of their own evidence, on a balance of probabilities, before the defendant is required to prove anything. Unlike Criminal proceeding, the burden of proof shifts from the parties in the case. Therefore, an employee who intends to challenge the termination of his employment must provide an avalanche of evidence to prove his case. See Sections 131 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011; Ezembe v. S.O. Ibeneme & Anor (2004) LPELR-1205 (SC).
- Statutory Flavour of Employment: When an employment relationship has a statutory character, it is governed by the relevant statute or regulations made under that statute, investing the employee with a legal status higher than an ordinary master-servant relationship. Termination of such employment must strictly comply with the procedures prescribed by the statute, and any departure renders the termination null and void. Arbitrary terminations are impermissible. The court relied on the following cases Imoloame v. West African Examinations Council (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303; LONGE v. FBN PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 7; BAMGBOYE v. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290; OLATUNBOSUN v. N.I.S.E.R. COUNCIL (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; OLUFEAGBA & ORS. v. ABDUR-RAHEEM & ORS. (2009) LPELR-2613 (SC); ALHASSAN v. ABY, ZARIA & ORS. (2009) LPELR-8138 (CA).
- Court's Exclusive Reliance on Termination Letter for Reasons: When determining the lawfulness of a termination, the court must limit its examination to the contents of the termination letter. Any reason for termination not explicitly stated in the letter cannot be introduced or speculated upon by the court, as documentary evidence is considered the best evidence and speaks for itself. This appears to be the highlight of the court's decision, and it relied on the following cases to reach its decision: IKEMBA v. PYRAMMIDT COMPANY NIG. LTD. (2021) LPELR-56145 (CA); IWUOHA v. MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLTD. (2011) LPELR-4477 (CA); A.G. Bendel State v. U.B.A. Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 37) 547; Akinbisade v. The State (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 184 SC.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the National Industrial Court in Dakat v. FRSC is yet a strong reminder that a statutorily backed employment is not subject to unilateral or arbitrary managerial discretion. Rather, the entire affairs that may affect employment are subject to certain statutory regulations and guidelines. In this case, the FRSC could not blindly rely on undisclosed disciplinary findings when its formal notice solely cited that the Claimant's "services are no longer required."
This case serves as a clear judicial precedent that where an employment relationship is governed by legislative enactment, its termination must scrupulously conform to the prescribed statutory framework. An employer's failure to observe due process, irrespective of the alleged infractions, renders the dismissal unlawful, void, and of no effect. Consequently, it is imperative that employers, particularly public institutions, conduct a thorough compliance audit before finalising any disciplinary action to avoid a judicial nullification. More importantly, the reasons for the termination of employment must be stated clearly in the termination letter.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
