APPOINTMENT OF FCT HIGH COURT JUDGES: JUSTICE REFORM PROJECT APPEALS DECISION OF JUSTICE OKON ABANG

The Justice Reform project (JPR) has filed an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over by Hon. Justice Okon Abang dismissing a suit challenging the appointment of some FCT High Court Judges by the President.

This is contained in a Notice of Appeal dated Nov. 23, filed by JPR Foundation Ltd/Gte and obtained by Lawparliament Media in Lagos.

The appellant averred that the lower court misdirected itself in law when it misconstrued the relief sought, as labour related, adding that the reliefs before the court “relates to the interpretation of the Constitution, principally, section 153(1) and paragraph 21 of part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution.

The Appellant argues that the trial court “erred in Law when it held that the recommendation of the fifth- 25th respondents to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent for appointment as Judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory is an employment-related matter and by virtue of section 254(c)(1A) and (1D) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) as amended, only the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit.

Appellant avers that the fifth-25th respondents having only been shortlisted and proposed for appointment do not qualify as employees subject to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court

In addition, the Appellant alleged that the Learned Trial Judge denied it fair hearing by isolating and determining only the issue of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

It added that the court erred when it declared that the Appellant lacks the locus standi to institute the action, noting that it has an interest beyond a private person or ordinary member of the public and that it requires no consent of the Attorney General of the Federation to file the action.

Besides, the Appellant contends that the Judge erred in Law when he declined to have proceedings conducted virtually”, noting that he ignored the Federal High Court Practice Direction for conducting hearing during the COVID-19 period.

JPR contends that contrary to what the Judge did, “preliminary objection to jurisdiction is not a bar to conducting proceedings virtually and that application to hear the matter virtually, by its nature, takes priority over any other application.

Consequently, the Appellants seeks an order setting aside the decision of the trial court and to invoke its general powers under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap C36, LFN 2004 to grant all the declarations being sought.

LPM reports that the Appellant had earlier approached the Federal High Court which had dismissed its suit in which it urged the court to set aside the recommendation of the National Judicial Council on the appointment of Judges of the FCT High Court.