Following an application by a dismissed soldier for an order of court invalidating the termination of his recruitment by the Nigerian Army on the basis of wrongful dismissal and lack of fair hearing, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed that “once a Court makes a finding that the employee was given the ample opportunity to defend himself/herself of the allegations in issue, then such an employee cannot complain of not being given fair- hearing.”
Chukwukere Worlu was court-martialed and found guilty of being behind the writing of anonymous petitions to the Presidency and other places against the activities of the Nigerian Army without any authorization from ASA.
And although he sought an order of court invalidating the alleged wrongful dismissal, an order commanding the defendants to promote him to the next rank; an order for the Defendants to pay him all his outstanding salaries and entitlements commencing from 7th September 2019; an order commanding the Defendants to pay him 5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) for wrongfully termination of contract of employment, psychological trauma, emotional torture, depression, embarrassment and more, Counsel to the defendant (Army) Chief Peter Ozoagu presented the court with evidence that the conviction and award of dismissal from service was in line with the provisions of Armed Forces Act (AFA), Cap A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, Section 103 for Conduct to the Prejudice of Service Discipline.
In agreement with Ozoagu, Justice R. B. Haastrup noted that: “The Claimant admitted in his evidence under cross-examination of having being investigated by the Intelligent Unit along with some other persons, informed of the allegation against him and shown the charge,” and so cannot turn around to claim he was in the dark about his dismissal.
Her Lordship further stated: “The Claimant admitted receiving the copy of charge sheet within the stipulated period and had sufficient time also to prepare his defence”, but did not.
She then concluded: “It is trite law that the burden of proof in Civil matters is on the party who asserts a fact and has to prove it. The burden rests on the Claimant herein to prove what he claims against the Defendants and does not shift until he has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence.”
Section 103 of the AFA on which the Claimant (Worlu) was charged, tried, and convicted states thus;
Conduct to the prejudice of service discipline
Part XIII, Section 116 (1b) (i) of the AFA which relates to punishments for summary trial states as follows;
“Where the accused is below the rank of warrant officer class one or petty officer, the battalion commander or his equivalent may summarily deal with the charge by either dismissing the case or awarding any of the following punishments, that is;
Also, Section 124 (1) and (2) of the AFA which empowers a Commanding Officer to deal with charges summarily states:
“After investigation, a charge against a non -commissioned officer, soldier, rating or an aircraftman may be dealt with summarily by his Commanding Officer subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this part and part XIII of this Act”
Section 125 (2) further states that;
“Where the charge is one which can be dealt with summarily, the Commanding officer may; …otherwise deal with the charge summarily, and if he records a finding of guilty he may award punishment as provided under part XIII of this Act”
