Former employees of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), who were dismissed during a mass redundancy last year, have filed a lawsuit against the bank at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja....CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE➤
In their originating summons, filed on July 4, 2024, under the NICN Civil Procedure Rules 2017, the ex-CBN staff members raised several issues for the court to address.
Among other concerns, they are asking the court to determine if their constitutional right to a fair hearing was violated before and after the termination of their appointments.
They claim that the CBN breached internal policies, Nigerian labor laws, and their contractual rights.
The claimants, including Stephen Gana, Kabiru Idris, Benedict Agbo, Peter Adeyemi, John Yisa, Eleanor Ihua, Stephen Ambore, Edom Obi, Dabo Chundung, Ekpe-Oko Roupa, Alabi Mubarak, Isa Yusuf, Quadru Ralph, Olasupo Adedokun, Dauda Yusuf, Ogidi Tolu, Levi David, Umar Kurba, Christopher Alfred, Gana Nma, Tanko Joel, Iyare Christian, Paul Iza, Alzebeokhai Esiemokhai, Pius Odunze, Isiuwe Uwadiahu, Vivienne Usoro, Imoh Francis, Ofili Lydia, Onunkwor Christopher, Adeshina Nurudeen, Bukar Ahmed, and Ajayi Omosolape, are all represented by Okwudili Abanum in a class action lawsuit.
The claimants assert that the termination process, detailed in letters titled “Reorganisational and Human Capital Restructuring” dated April 5, 2024, violated both the CBN’s human resources policies and Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution.
They further argue that the process lacked the consultation and fair hearing required by law.
They also contend that the termination letters, issued under the guise of restructuring, were arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. Consequently, they are seeking an order declaring their dismissals null and void.
In addition, the claimants are requesting a restraining order to prevent the CBN from terminating their employment without adhering to the proper procedures.
They are also seeking a declaration for their immediate reinstatement and the payment of their salaries and benefits from the date of termination.
The suit references Article 16.4.1 of the HRPPM, which requires consultation with the joint consultative council and adherence to fair procedures before making employment decisions that adversely affect staff.
The claimants argue that this provision was flagrantly ignored, as they were given only three days to vacate their positions and return official property.
The former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) employees are also demanding N30 billion in general damages for psychological distress, hardship, and reputational harm caused by their dismissals.
Additionally, they are seeking N500 million to cover the cost of the lawsuit.
During the first hearing of the case on November 20, 2024, the court encouraged both parties to explore an amicable resolution.
Justice O.A. Osaghae stated, “This is a new matter; it is mentioned for the first time. I have looked at the processes, and it is my view that parties should attempt an amicable resolution of this dispute. Accordingly, parties are encouraged, pursuant to section 20 of the NICA 2006, to attempt an amicable settlement.”
Representing the CBN, a legal team led by Inam Wilson (SAN) informed the court of a preliminary objection filed against the claimants’ suit, which had been served to them on November 4, 2024.
Following this submission, Justice Osaghae adjourned the case to January 29, 2025, for the hearing of the preliminary objection.
It is worth noting that in 2024, the CBN dismissed about a thousand employees in four batches between March and May.
Some affected staff alleged receiving severance payments as low as N5,000, while others claimed their gratuities were entirely used to settle outstanding loans.
Although the layoffs were officially attributed to “reorganisation and human capital restructuring,” the dismissed employees argue that the process breached the CBN Act, which requires board approval for major employment decisions.
On December 4, 2024, the CBN maintained that the early exit package was completely voluntary and had no adverse consequences for eligible staff. ...CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE➤
Be the first to comment