Ambassador Dozie Nwanna
The notice of retirement served on a former Director in Nigeria's National Intelligence Agency - Ambassador Dozie Nwanna (OON) has been quashed by the National Industrial Court.
The former Deputy High Commissioner of Nigeria to the United Kingdom who also acted up as High Commissioner while the incumbent - Dr Dalhatu Sarki Tafida (CFR) was seconded to the Goodluck Jonathan - Namadi Sambo Campaign Organisation as Director-General; was recalled all of a sudden from London to return to Abuja.
He arrived back in Abuja - but was barred from entry at the Security Gate of the National Intelligence Agency headquarters on the ground that a directive by the Director-General had barred him from being allowed into the premises or any of its installations.
Nwanna jointly sued the National Intelligence Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General of the Federation in December 2011, challenging the notice of retirement served him on grounds that he was not due for retirement at the time.
While the case was pending, the National Intelligence Agency issued a letter terminating Nwanna's appointment with effect from January 1 2012.
Nwanna told the court that he took promotion examinations in 2005 and on passing the examination he was promoted pro forma to Grade Level 17 by letter dated June 2, 2006, which put the notional date of promotion as January 1, 2004, but actual promotion to be March 1, 2006.
Nwanna's lawyer, Francis Maduekwe claimed that based on the extant policy of the Federal Government, his client’s tenure as a Director with the NIA is for a period of eight years from the day he started serving as Director, which, cannot be a date earlier than June 2, 2006.
Delivering judgment, Justice Benedict Kanyip held that Nwanna was promoted notionally in 2004 with no financial benefit. The actual promotion with financial benefit was in 2006.
Kanyip said based on the extant policy of the Federal Government, the claimant's tenure as Director was for eight years. He said the tenure of the claimant as Director would end on February 28 and not the Jan, 1. 2012 stated on the retirement notice.
"I hereby find and hold that the eight-year tenure policy applies only to directors who have actually spent eight years on the post, not notionally as provided for in the Public Service Rules. "This means that the tenure of the claimant as director with the 1st defendant ends on Feb. 28, 2014.
"For all intents and purposes, the claimant remains a Director with the 1st defendant until Feb. 28, 2014 when he is expected to retire from service given the eight-year rule," the judge ruled.
During the hearing the agency had urged the court to dismiss the suit for being frivolous and lacking in merit.