Hearing in the N100Bn suit instituted against President Muhammadu Buhari by Senator Ifeanyi Ararume over his removal as Chairman of the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL)was on Thursday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja over improper service of court papers.
Though the suit was slated for hearing, it was shifted forward following discovery that the amended originating summons meant for the newly Incorporated Nigeria NNPCL was served on the Federal Ministry of Justice.
But President Muhammadu Buhari, on his part, has filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear Araraume’s suit pursuant to Section 2(A) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court as provided by Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Filed on December 8, 2022 on Buhari by a team of lawyers from the Federal Ministry of Justice, the President objected on three grounds, to wit: that the removal of Araraume (the plaintiff/respondent in the suit) as the non-executive chairman of NNPCL (2nd defendant/respondent) was done in his capacity as a Public Officer by virtue of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); that the suit was a statute barred action , which offended the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, 2004 with respect to his administrative acts or decisions made on January 17, 2022, being a period of about seven months prior to the filing of this suit on September 12, 2022.
Another ground of objection was that the suit was an abuse of court process, which ultimately deprived the court of the jurisdiction to entertain it.
The second defendant in the suit, NNPCL, also filed its notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit and praying the court to make an order dismissing it; or, in the alternative, make an order striking out Araraume’s originating summons dated September 12, 2022 (now amended); or make such further order or orders as it (the court) may deem to make in the circumstances.
The grounds of preliminary objection include the fact that the Senatir Araraume’s action was statute-barred having regard of Section 2 (a)of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap P41 LFN 2004; the action constituted an abuse of court process being one that was not supported by law, having regard to the provisions of the Interpretation Act 2004; the Petroleum Industry Act 2021; the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020; and the Articles of Association of NNPCL
They also averred that the suit was wrongly commenced by originating summons as the 75-paragraph affidavit in support thereof, raises inherently contentious facts; and the originating summons required proof by oral evidence; and that the plaintiff’s suit, as constituted, is incompetent, lacking in any cause of action; nor carrying any right of action, having regard to the statutory powers of the 1st defendant/respondent implicated in this action.
At Thursday’s proceedings, counsel to the NNPC, Oluseye Opasanya, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria SAN, informed the court that all his processes were filed based on the initial originating summons.
He told Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo that the initial originating summons ordered to be amended to accommodate the Corporate Affairs Commission CAC as a defendant in the suit was not served on him.
At this point, counsel to Ararume, Chief Chris Uche SAN, disagreed with the claims of the NNPC lawyer adding that the amended originating summons has been served on all parties as required by law.
A search for proof of service in the case file by Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo, however, showed that the service of the originating summons was on the Federal Ministry of Justice and not on the NNPC.
This prompted the NNPC lawyer to vounteer to link up with the Ministry to pick up the amended originating summons and re-file his processes to accommodate CAC as one of the defendants.
Justice Ekwo subsequently shifted definite hearing in the suit till January 11 next year to enable parties amend their processes to accommodate the CAC.
Justice Ekwo warmed that all lawyers involved in the matter must file and exchange all their processes before the adjourned date, adding that any counsel who fail to adhere to the warning would be personally penalised by the court.
Ararume had last month slammed a N100 billion on President Buhari over his alleged unlawful removal as a non-Executive Chairman of the Nigeria National Petroleum Company, (NNPC).
He is demanding the sum as damages caused him in the alleged unlawful manner he was removed as the NNPC Chief after using his name to incorporate the entity.
The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/691/2022 was instituted on his behalf by a group of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) comprising Chief Chris Uche, Ahmed Raji, Mahmud Magaji, Ogwu James Onoja, Kingsley Nwufor and Gordy Uche.
In the suit, Ararume formulated four issues for determination by the court among which was whether in view of the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NNPC, Companies and Allied Matters Act 2010 and the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, the office of the non-Executive Chairman is not governed and regulated by the stated provisions of the law.
He is also asking the court to determine whether by the interpretation of Section 63 (3) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, the President can lawfully remove him as non Executive Chairman of the NNPC for any reason outside the provisions of the law.
The Imo politician also wants the court to determine whether Buhari can sack him without compliance with expressly stated provisions of the Articles of Memorandum of Association of the Company, section 63 (3) of the PIA Act 2021 and section 288 of the CAMA Act 2020.
Also listed for determination is whether his purported removal vide letter of January 17, 2022 without compliance with expressly stated provisions of the law is not wrongful, illegal, null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever.
Upon the determination of the issues in his favour, the plaintiff wants the court to make declaration that his position as non Executive Chairman of the NNPC is exclusively governed and regulated by CAMA 2020, PIA Act 2021 and Memorandum of Association of the Company.
He also wants a declaration that by the provisions of section 63 (3) of the PIA Act, CAMA Act and Memorandum of Association of the NNPC, the President cannot by will remove him from office as non Executive Chairman without following due process of the law.
Ararume, therefore, prayed for an order of the Court setting aside his removal by Buhari vide letter of January 17, 2022 with reference number SGF.3V111/86.
He also sought order of the Court reinstating him forthwith and restoring him to office with all the appurtenant rights and privileges of the office of the NNPC non Executive Chairman.
Plaintiff further demands for nullification and setting aside of all decisions and resolutions of the NNPC Board made in his absence from January 17, 2022 till date and another order restraining the defendants from removing his name as Director of the Company.
He requested for N100B as damages for the wrongful removal, disruption and interruption of his term of office as non Executive Chairman of the NNPC.
In a 75 paragraph affidavit in support of the suit, Ararume averred that upon the passage of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, the former Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation NNPC and its subsidiaries were unbundled to become Nigeria National Petroleum Company registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission with number 1843987.
That on October 20, 2021, President Buhari approved his appointment as a non Executive Chairman for a period of initial five years and subsequently, his name registered in the Memorandum of Articles of the Company and the appointment announced to the whole world.
Based on the appointment, Ararume averred that he attended 23rd World Petroleum Congress in the United States of America but surprisingly on January 7th, 2022, Buhari inaugurated the NNPC Board without a recourse to him while another person was named in his place.
By a letter of January 17, 2022, he was informed of withdrawal of his appointment but without any reason whatsoever to justify the purported removal.
Plaintiff asserted that he was not guilty of any pre-conditions for removal and was never declared bankrupt or adjudged medically unfit for the job.
Based on the unlawful act of the defendant, plaintiff said that the action has fuelled public suspicion and rumours against his person.
Subsequently, Ararume asserted that he has suffered loss of credibility and goodwill, untold emotional, mental and psychological trauma and public humiliation, degradation and embarrassment by his purported removal by President Buhari.
He, therefore, prayed the court to award him N100Billion compensation and to order his return to office in line with the letter and conditions of his appointment.
At the November 9 proceedings, Justice Inyang Edem Ekwo ordered that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) be joined as a party following no objection from Chief Chris Uche SAN, who stood for Ararume, and Alhasan Shuaib who represented President Buhari.
Justice Ekwo had subsequently ordered that the originating summons be amended to accommodate CAC and be served on all parties..
