Salihu Ali, Abuja
In a significant legal development, the court of appeal in Abuja has reinstated Mohammed Dauda, the former Director General (DG) of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA).
Justice Peter Ige delivered the judgement on Thursday evening, stating that the evidence leading to Dauda’s dismissal was frivolous and lacked merit.
The appellate court also ruled in favor of Dauda on all contentious issues raised by the NIA, which was the appellant in the case.
The court further ordered that Dauda should receive his salaries and entitlements dating back to the day of his dismissal from office. Additionally, a sum of N1 million was awarded to Dauda as compensation.
In a crucial declaration, Justice Ige stated, “Dauda should be allowed to retire in service following the stipulated laws.”
Implicit in its ruling, the court stated, “There is no evidence before the court that shows that the respondent has constituted any risk or breach of any law.” This led to the dismissal of the appeal by the NIA, affirming the judgement by the Industrial Court.
It should be noted that Mohammed Dauda was appointed as the head of Nigeria’s security agency in November 2017 but was replaced by an aide to President Muhammadu Buhari in January 2018 after only a few months in office.
Dissatisfied with his abrupt removal, Dauda took legal action, arguing that his dismissal did not follow due process and was wrongful. He pointed out the failure to establish a special management staff disciplinary committee to investigate the charges against him, as required by law, and the denial of a fair hearing.
Earlier, the judgment by Justice Olufunke Anuwe of the Industrial Court had ordered Dauda’s reinstatement as the head of the NIA, along with the payment of salaries and entitlements from March 2018 until the present. The court found that his dismissal was in violation of the NIA Act.
Justice Anuwe emphasized in her ruling that “under the agency’s rule, the appropriate committee to investigate disciplinary cases against management staff is the management staff disciplinary committee, not the special management staff disciplinary committee.”
