ABUJA — The legal battle between the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Federal Government over the legality of imposing N1.50k per litre tax on Petroleum Motor Spirit (PMS) and Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) yesterday assumed a new dimension as the NLC accused the Chief Judge of the Federal high court, Justice Roseline Ukeje hearing the case of bias.
The accusation was made against the judge by NLC's lawyer, Mr Femi Falana after the court overruled three of its applications which it claimed were fundamental to its case. Justice Ukeje who decided not to be offended by the accusation dismissed it as attempt to annoy, terrorise and intimidate her so that she could hands off the matter, saying she would carry on with the case.
She however listened to a number of pending applications before her, ensured that the written brief already filed by labour was adopted and reserved September 21, this year for judgment in the case. Before judgment was fixed in the matter yesterday, there were exchanges between the labour and the presiding judge.
The exchanges were provoked by the refusal of Justice Ukeje to shift grounds on her earlier order that Mr Falana representing Labour should adopt his written address in the matter yesterday since Chief Afe Babalola representing the Federal Government had adopted his. It was Falana who first addressed the court after appearances were announced yesterday.
He said he conceded though that what was supposed to be attended to yesterday was the adoption of his written brief but that since an earlier order of the court was not complied with, he said he had deemed it fit to file a motion setting aside all the processes served in the matter.
Specifically, he was of the opinion that when an originating summons is issued, it should be served on the defendants personally by the bailiffs of the court, a requirement that was not complied with in this case. He argued that since the rule was not complied with, Falana reasoned that the implication was that the action was not properly constituted and therefore the court could not entertain it.
Besides, since his application was challenging the jurisdiction of the court, it should be accorded priority over other pending applications before the court.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Mr Oluwole Aladegboye confirmed that he had been served with the motion and that a counter-affidavit had been filed. He however reasoned that the court could conveniently take the application of Mr Falana together with the adoption of the briefs which was the business of the day for the court.
Both parties addressed the court on whether the application challenging the jurisdiction of the court could be taken alongside the adoption of address to which the court said there was nothing wrong in it.
Immediately after the judge held that both could be taken together, Falana said he was not ready to adopt his address as he did not prepare for it, and said he will argue the fresh application he brought, challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Besides, he hinted the court that Labour had wanted to appeal its ruling over what the position of law is when a contempt proceedings is pending before the court but that the court had denied them the certified true copies of the ruling, making it impossible for them to go upstairs.
He reminded the court that at the last adjourned date when they addressed the court on what the position of the law on the matter was, he said they cited a plethora of authourities which he claimed were not considered by the judge in her ruling.
Falana now looked up to the judge to say: “By refusing to grant our request in the circumstance, with respect, it is our view that the court had taken sides with the Federal Government by simply asking us to come and get our assured judgment
The Federal Government however joined issue with Labour as it said that the issue of court being biased did not occur.
According to the Federal Government, if labour was dissatisfied with the ruling of the court, that did not amount to bias.
“We urge the court not to be intimidated by his submission and discountenance same as it is not borne out by any law,” it added.
Falana stood and said: “The Federal Government has not responded to the very allegation of the denial of the records of proceedings . I thought he was going to justify the denial because the court has said that it would not give to us the record of proceedings for that day.”
Justice Ukeje now intervened, asking: “Who said that you would not be given record of proceedings?” to which Falana said “the court,” adding that “we learnt that your lordship went to Lagos with the court file.”
Justice Ukeje now faced her registrar and asked him if it was true that such information was got from him to which he said no.
According to the court’s registrar, Mr Asogwa said that all he told Labour was that he passed across their application for certified true copies of the court’s ruling and record of proceedings in the matter and that at the time the file was passed, the chief judge was in a meeting with other judges and had to leave the application with the secretary.
He told the judge in the open court that he never told labour that the court was not willing to give labour the CTC of the ruling.
Justice Ukeje who looked embarrassed by the unfolding events cleared herself saying: “I did not take any file to Lagos.”
