Appeal Court Reinstates Former NIA Boss Mohammed Dauda
The court of appeal in Abuja has reinstated the former Director General DG, of the National Intelligence Agency NIA Mohammed Dauda.
Delivering judgement on Thursday evening, Justice Peter Ige said, the evidence leading to the dismissal of Dauda was frivolous and lacking in merit.
The Appallet court also resolved all the contentious issues against NIA in favour of Dauda who is a respondent in the suit.
The court ordered that Dauda’s salaries and entitlements since the day of dismissal from office be paid back.
The appellate court also gave an order that the sum of N1 million be paid to Dauda.
Justice Ige held further that, “Dauda should be allowed to retire in service following the stipulated laws.
The court said: “There is no evidence before the court that shows that the respondent has constituted any risk or breached of any law.”
“The appellant appeal is hereby dismissed the matter for lacking in merit and the Industrial Court judgment is hereby affirmed,” Justice Ige held.
It could be recalled that the former Director General DG, of the National Intelligence Agency NIA Mohammed Dauda acted as the head of Nigeria’s security agency from November 2017 to January 2018, when he was replaced by an aide to President Muhammadu Buhari.
Dauda had spent just a few months on the job before he was removed.
Dissatisfied by his unjust removal, Dauda challenged his removal in court, saying his dismissal from service did not follow due process and was wrongful.
He argued that, in contravention of the law, no special management staff of the disciplinary committee (SMSDC) was set up to investigate the charges against him, and he was not given any fair hearing afterwards.
In an earlier judgement delivered by Justice Olufunke Anuwe, of the Industrial Court had ordered the reinstatement of Mohammed Dauda as the head of the National Intelligence Agency and payment of salaries and entitlements from March 2018 till date after it found that his dismissal fell short of the NIA Act.
The judgment was held 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.”
