On 13 May 2020, the Federal High Court sitting in the Abuja Judicial Division struck out a suit filed by Hon. Ali Sani, a member of the NIPC Governing Council, on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacked the legal standing to bring the suit and that it was statute-barred.
Hon. Sani had instituted the action on 25 November 2019, seeking to restrain NIPC, the Chairman of the Governing Council, and the Executive Secretary from appropriating and spending funds realised as internally generated revenue (IGR). He also filed an ex parte application and an interlocutory application for an injunction restraining the Commission from spending its IGR for 2018, 2019 and 2020.
On 17 December 2019, Honourable Justice A. I. Chikere of the Federal High Court had granted an interim order restraining NIPC from spending its IGR pending the determination of the motion for injunction. The interim order substantially halted NIPC's operations, as the Commission funds most of its operational expenses from IGR. In particular, NIPC was disconnected for non-payment of electricity bills, was unable to pay for diesel, and could not pay the salaries of outsourced service providers — including security guards, cleaners, and gardeners — from December 2019.
Counsel to the Defendants, Messrs Afe Babalola & Co, through lead counsel Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN, filed a preliminary objection arguing that Hon. Sani, as a member of the Governing Council that approved the IGR expenditure, had no legal right to seek its restraint; that the Commission could not be restrained from exercising statutory powers; and that the suit was statute-barred. In its ruling on the motion for injunction, the Court agreed that the Plaintiff had no legal right to restrain an executive body from exercising its statutory powers, and further held that the application sought to restrain spending that had already taken place in 2018 and 2019.
In ruling on the preliminary objection, the Court struck out the name of the Chairman of NIPC as a non-juristic person in law. The Court then struck out the substantive suit on the ground that it was statute-barred, having been filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued, in accordance with Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, leaving the Court without jurisdiction to entertain it.
