The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed October 31 to give its ruling in the suit filed to remove Chiedu Ebie as the Chairman of the Board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) over allegations of improper appointment.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the judgement day today during the court session following the submission of written addresses by the parties involved, which served as their arguments for and against the originating summons.
It is worth noting that certain communities from the Niger Delta have initiated legal action against President Bola Tinubu, claiming that he breached the NDDC Act by appointing Ebie to the position.
The plaintiffs, representing communities from Bayelsa and Delta States, contended in court that Ebie is unqualified for the role of Board Chairman, as he does not hail from “the oil-producing area with the highest quantum of oil production.”
The individuals who filed the lawsuit include Chief Goodnews Gereghewei, Chief Eddy Brayei, and Mr. Jonah Engineyouwei, acting on behalf of themselves and the communities of Bisangbene, Agge, and Amatu1 in the Ekeremor Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
The respondents in the case include President Tinubu, the Senate President, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the NDDC, and Ebie, listed as the 1st to 5th respondents, respectively.
Additionally, Jerry Mulade-Aroh, representing Gbaramatu Kingdom, Mr. Jolomi Itsekure, representing Itsekiri oil and gas-producing communities, and Friday Ugedi, representing Egbema Kingdom, all from Delta, have sought to be included as plaintiffs in the case.
During the proceedings on Tuesday, the plaintiffs, through their attorney Mr. Egberipou Sotonye Barakemi, requested the court to reject the preliminary objection raised by President Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation, asserting that the entire case against all respondents should be dismissed for lack of merit.
Maimuna Lami Ashiru, representing President Tinubu, along with Umaru Jibril, who stands for the Attorney General of the Federation, and Emmanuel Akumaye, representing the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and Ebie, collectively urged the court to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Following the presentations from all parties involved, Justice Abdulmalik announced that the ruling on the preliminary objection, as well as the judgment regarding the main suit, would be delivered on October 31 of this year.
The case, designated as FHC/ABJ/CS/28/2024 and filed on January 11, 2024, involves plaintiffs who allege that both President Tinubu and the National Assembly violated the NDDC Act by screening and appointing Ebie Chiedu as the Chairman of the NDDC Board.
The plaintiffs contended that while Ebie hails from an oil-producing state, he is not eligible for the position of board chairman as he does not originate from the highest oil-producing region.
In the affidavit deposed 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, represented by their attorney B. B. Abalaba, requested the court to ascertain if Ebie, hailing from a community with limited oil production, is eligible to serve as the chairman of the 4th defendant, the Niger Delta Development Commission.
Additional matters for consideration include whether the 1st defendant’s appointment of the 5th defendant as chairman of the 4th defendant contravenes the provisions 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 1st 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 recognizing 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,” the requests reads.
