By EZEKIEL OBI, Abuja –
A Civil Rights group, Accountable Leadership for Better Nigeria (ALBNI) has advised the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) against toeing the path of injustice and jeopardy against the Chief Medical Director, CMD, of the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Professor Jesse Otegbayo.
Executive Director of ALBNI, Remi Adebayo, stated this in a statement issued to NATIONAL ACCORD on Wednesday in Abuja.
ADEBAYO noted that filing fresh charges against Otegbayo on a matter he was already reprimanded and the issue long resolved by the Federal Ministry of Health and the House of Representatives, amounts to a contravention of the law, grave injustice and double jeopardy.
“Specifically, the organisation is curious that the charge sheet which alleged unlawful recruitment of workers, signed by one Agbili Ezenwa of the ICPC Head Office, Abuja, was prepared on 7 February, 2020 but filed three years after on 20 February, 2023.
“We at ALBNI views the three-count charge filed at the Federal High Court in Ibadan, was improperly served on Prof Otegbayo in Abuja. This action amounted to double jeopardy on the grounds that the alleged offence of the CMD had been ‘punished’ by the Federal Ministry of Health which in August 2021 issued him a “letter of reprimand for unauthorized employment,” said the organisation.
ALBNI is even worried that those who seek to persecute Prof Otegbayo for administrative oversight also benefited from the alleged offence.
“Information at our disposal indicate that the Office of the Head of Service, the Budget Office of the Federation and ICPC officials sent lists of candidates to the UCH for employment in the said recruitment exercise”, said ALBNI Executive Director, Mr Remi Adebayo.
Also, in a protest letter, lawyer to Prof Otegbayo, Mr Olaniyi Okin counselled the ICPC to respect the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits exposing a Nigerian citizen to double jeopardy.
In the letter dated September 14, 2023 and addressed to the Chairman of ICPC, the attention of the ICPC’s Chief was drawn to the fact that the complaint upon which the criminal charge was predicated had been thoroughly investigated by the House of Representatives Committee on Health upon which recommendations were made to the Ministry of Health.
The CMD’s lawyer argued that based on the House of Representatives Committee recommendations, a firm action was taking by the Health Ministry on the alleged breach of Civil Service Procedure in workers employment as far back as August 2021.
The letter read in part: “The Minister of Health on August 16, 2021, caused a letter of reprimand to be issued to our client. His offence: he carried out employment in the hospital without compliance with extant procedures governing such exercises in the public service.
“We feel strongly that the fresh charge now preferred against our client, after the matter was finalized more than two years ago, amounts to double jeopardy which is against the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Besides faulting the criminal charge against his client, Okin also expressed displeasure with the improper and unlawful manner in which the charge was served on the Chief Medical Director.
“By a letter dated the 28 August, 2023 addressed to our client, your Commission informed him that it was investigating an allegation bordering on the violation of the provision of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, and was therefore advised pursuant to Section 28 of the said Act, to appear before Akeem Lawal fsi, the Director of Operations in Abuja on Tuesday, the 5th day of September, 2023.
“In the said letter, our client was informed that he had the right to have a lawyer, a staff of the Legal Aid Council, a Justice of Peace or any individual of his choice present while being interviewed in compliance with the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act, 2015.
“I accompanied my client to your office on Tuesday, the 5th day of September, 2023 but to our utter consternation, he was served with the court process in the above-named suit; a suit filed at the Federal High Court, Ibadan. He was thereafter asked to return to Ibadan after acknowledging service on a sheet of paper.
“I promptly registered my dissatisfaction to the procedure and called the attention of the Director of Operations to the fact that under the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, particularly Order 6 Rule 1(a), it is the sheriff or deputy sheriff, bailiff or officer of the court or other persons appointed by the court or judge that has the responsibility of serving such a process. The party to be served needed not come all the way from Ibadan, where the process was filed, to be served in Abuja. One wonders how the document for service, a property of the court, got into the hands of officers of the Commission.
“The response to this observation from your officer was tacit and unconvincing. He claimed that was the procedure of the Commission and that its legal department so advised. But every competent lawyer knows that the procedure adopted by the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the rules of court and is tantamount to improper service of the said process. Why will the ICPC unduly punish the CMD, a chief executive of a major health institution, by asking him to travel to Abuja merely to collect court summons for a case filed in Ibadan? Certainly, there is more than meets the eye, especially considering the fact that the case was filed on 7 February, 2022!
“The issue of service of court process is basic and fundamental as it is the foundation of a court action. If there is no proper service (as in this case), the action is without jurisdiction. See Ajibola vs. Sogeke (2003) 9 NWLR @ 826 page 494. Further, the essence of service of process in our procedural laws cannot be undermined. Service of process is sine qua non for any effective adjudication otherwise a court has no jurisdiction over a party who has not been served or properly served unless he otherwise submits to the court’s jurisdiction.
“The requirement of putting other party on notice underscores a party’s right to be heard or to be given an opportunity to be heard based on the principles of natural justice.
“We wish to reiterate that the procedure where a party is expected to travel kilometers away from his place of abode in Ibadan to your office for the purpose of been served with a process, considering the attendant travelling and security risks, is to say the least, unjustifiable particularly when the party sought to be served resides within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit was filed.
“We therefore wish to appeal to you honour to urgently look into the procedures of your Commission particularly when dealing with the issues of law which is regulated by extant rules of court and procedures with a view to streamlining same. This will go a long way to redeem the image of the Commission as an unbiased umpire in the fight against corrupt practices”, Okin advised.
DISCLAIMER
The OPINION / COLUMN is authored by independent contributors to the National Accord Newspaper. While contributors adhere to our editorial guidelines, they are not employed by the National Accord Newspaper. The perspectives and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of the National Accord Newspaper or its staff.
Leave a Reply