A federal high court sitting in Abuja, yesterday dismissed the suit filed by Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), challen-ging the payment of salaries in foreign currencies to two serving ministers.
Delivering ruling on the preliminary objection filed by the federal government, Justice (Mrs) Binta Murtala Nyako ruled that the plaintiff lacked locus standi or legal right to institute the case.
She noted that the plaintiff must show that his personal interest has been affected as a result of the foreign currencies being paid to the foreign affairs minister, Ambassador Olu Adeniji and the finance minister, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.
Justice Murtala Nyako said that the plaintiff must show that his personal inte-rest is affected or in an immi-nent danger before he can be clothed with a legal right.
She said, “section 6(b) of the constitution does not confer automatic locus standi on the plaintiff. He must further show that payment of salaries in foreign currencies has affected his civil right as a citizen of Nigeria.”
She, however, added that it would be a different issue if the plaintiff had challenged the paying authority on why it did not comply with the laid down rules on payment of salaries to the affected mini-sters.
Justice Murtala Nyako added that the plaintiff must show that non compliance with laid down rules has affected his civil right. She however struck out the case.
But representatives of the plaintiff, Mr Sikiru Folajimi Akinrele said that he will file an appeal on the matter.
Fawehinmi is seeking among others, a declaration that the purported authori-sation by the president that the salaries of the finance ministry, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the external affairs minister, Mr Olufemi Adeniji, be paid in foreign currencies was unconstitutional and amounted to an abuse of office.
He also asked for a decla-ration that no public officer under the “certain political, public and judicial office holders (salaries and allowances, etc Act No. 6 of 2002 made on 13th December 2002 but which is deemed to have come into force on 29th of May, 1999, is entitled to receive his or her salary in any other currency other than the naira.”
In another development, federal high court sitting in Abuja yesterday advised all interested persons and firms that there is a pending suit against the privatisation of the Aluminium Smelter Com-pany of Nigeria Plc (ALSCON).
Justice Steven Jonah Adah responded to a request by the plaintiff for an order to restrain or that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the suit, but he added that people were already aware of the suit.
The BFI Group Corpor-ation has sued the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), over the privatisation of ALSON, saying there was a breach of contract by the BPE which withdrew its bid after BFIG emerged as the preferred bidder.
The BFIG which filed a motion on notice and an originating summons, asked the court for an order of inte-rlocutory injunction restra-ining the BPE or its agents from embarking on any fresh privatisation exercise of ALSCON.
It also asked the court to restrain BPE from inviting any person or group or company to make a fresh bid for the purchase or any share or any of the shares being held by the federal government in the capital of ALSCON.
BFIG also prayed for an order to restrain BPE from breaching the tripartite agre-ement and understanding between the plaintiff, the defendant, as well as Rusal company.
But counsel to the BPE, Mr R. Yusuf from the cham-bers of G. K. Gadzama (SAN), yesterday filed a preliminary objection asking that the suit be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
He stated that the suit was improperly constituted, vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of court process, inco-mpetent and prayed the entire suit to be struck-out
However, counsel to BFIG, Mr Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), argued that the case was a party contract which should be instituted through an originating summons.
He cited the case of Obasanjo Vs Baba Femi 2000 (23) INLMR page 30, saying that the court had held that when the issue involved in the case is a contract, it should be commenced by originating summons.
He also argued that the suit is competent since they have genuine claims against the plaintiff, saying that the suit was not an abuse of court process since this would be the first time that the matter will be heard.
Akintola said all the cases cited by BPE counsel were not applicable and urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection.
Justice Adah reserved ruling on the objection to November 1, 2004 and asked all parties to take judicial notice of the case.
|
