Politics
Sanusi awarded N50 Million in damages by Courts
According to the courts, “Section 254 (c) 1 (d) of the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court, with respect to civil causes or matters touching on employment, labour or industrial relations.” Furthermore Ajogwu added, “We respectfully urge the court to hold that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the applicant.”
The counsel urged the court to strike out the suit. Mr. Ajogwu also argued that the applicant should not, by the suit, seek to restrain the respondents from performing their constitutional duties. He then argued that Mr. Sanusi was being investigated based on the FRCN’s claims. He said the suspended bank chief was being investigated in accordance with the provisions of the law, which the respondents had a statutory duty to perform.
Citing the dictum of retired Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court in the case of Adeniran vs Alao, Mr. Ajogwu submitted that a perpetual injunction would be everlasting and could not be granted by a court of law. “The applicant’s suit is basically an action to shield him from the machinery of administration of justice, which has been kick-started by the respondents,” Mr. Ajogwu submitted.
While the AGF said Mr. Sanusi was being investigated based on the FRCN investigations, the police said it was not investigating the CBN boss. The counsel to the police, David Abuo, said nobody ever reported Mr. Sanusi to the police. He, however aligned with Mr. Ajogwu, saying the case should be struck out as it seeks to bar government agencies from performing their duties.
However, responding to the respondents’ preliminary objection, counsel to Mr. Sanusi, Mr. Awodehin submitted that the court was vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He argued that the suit had nothing to do with the terms of employment of the applicant or industrial relations, since it was not a case of the applicant against the Central Bank of Nigeria.
He argued that the applicant never sought an order of perpetual injunction, adding that the reliefs he sought were qualified. “It cannot be suggested that the applicant is restraining the respondents from performing their duties, but they must be restrained from doing so without due process of the law.
He also stated, “The seizure of the applicant’s international passport by the third respondent is a derogation of his freedom of movement.” Mr. Awodehin also argued that the different submissions by the three respondents showed that laws were being violated in Mr. Sanusi’s treatment.
