Alleged Unlawful Appointment: Court To Decide Fate Of NDDC Chairman Ebie October 31

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed October 31, to deliver judgement in a suit seeking the sack of the Chairman of the Board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Mr Chiedu Ebie.

The plaintiffs, Niger Delta communities dragged NDDC and its chairman before the court over alleged wrongful appointment.

The court fixed the date on Tuesday shortly after parties in the suit adopted their written addresses as their arguments for and against the originating summons.

Recall that some Niger Delta communities had sued President Bola Tinubu, for allegedly violating the NDDC’s Act by appointing Ebie as chairman of the NDDC board.

The plaintiffs from Bayelsa and Delta States communities had told the court that Ebie was not qualified to occupy the seat of Board Chairman, saying he is not from, “the oil producing area with the highest quantum of oil production”.

Those who filed the suit include Chief Goodnews Gereghewei, Chief Eddy Brayei and Mr Jonah Engineyouwei, who sued on behalf of themselves and Bisangbene, Agge and Amatu1 communities in Ekeremor local government area of Bayelsa State.

President Tinubu, Senate President, Attorney-General of the Federation, NDDC and Ebie are 1st to 5th respondents respectively.

Meanwhile, Jerry Mulade-Aroh representing Gbaramatu Kingdom, Mr Jolomi Itsekure, representing Itsekiri Oil and Gas producing communities and Hon Friday Ugedi, representing Egbema Kingdom all in Delta also sought to be joined as plaintiffs in the suit.

During proceedings on Tuesday, the plaintiffs through their lawyer, Mr Egberipou Sotonye Barakemi, urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by President Tinubu and the AGF, adding that the court should dismiss the entire case of all the respondents for lacking in merit.

Mrs Maimuna Lami Ashiru, representing President Tinubu and the AGF, Umaru Jibril, representing the National Assembly and Emmanuel Akumaye, representing NDDC and Ebie, urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

After listening to all parties, Justice Abdulmalik announced that ruling in the preliminary objection to the suit as well as her judgement in the main suit would be delivered on October 31.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2024, and filed January 11, 2024, the plaintiffs claimed that both President Tinubu and the National Assembly contravened the NDDC Act by screening and appointing Ebie Chiedu as NDDC Board Chairman.

They submitted that although Ebie is from an oil producing State but, was however not qualified for appointment as board chairman because he was not from the highest oil producing areas.

In the affidavit deposed to in support of the suit, the plaintiffs averred that Ebie’s appointment “was done in error and is against the clear provisions of the law.

“That the screening and confirmation of the 5th defendant by the Nigerian Senate was also done in error and was against the clear provisions of the law.

“That as a result of the facts above and in particular the facts in paragraphs 2 – 11, the appointment of the 5th defendant is null, void and of no effect”.

The plaintiffs through their lawyer, B. B. Abalaba, had asked the court to determine whether Ebie who is from a community with minimal oil production is qualified to be the chairman of the 4th defendant (Niger Delta Development Commission).

Other issues raised for determination are whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not in contravention of the NDDC Act.

“Whether the appointment of the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant is not illegal null and void?”

They therefore prayed the court for an order “setting aside the appointment of the 5th defendant as the chairman of the 4th defendant by the 1s defendant.

“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from assuming office or in any way acting as the chairman of the 4th defendant.

“An order of injunction restraining the 4th defendant from recognising the 5th defendant as its chairman or allowing him access into its premises for the purpose of beginning or continuing work as its chairman.

“An order of injunction restraining the 5th defendant from holding himself out as the chairman of the 4th defendant”.