Court Overturns the Decision Suing IGP Usman Baba

Because the Originating Processes in the lawsuit brought by journalist Okechukwu Nwafor were not served on the IGP, Justice Fatun Riman annulled the decision.

The Federal High Court in Akwa-Ibom has overturned its May 19, 2023 ruling prohibiting Usman Baba, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), from holding himself out as the office holder.

Because the Originating Processes in the lawsuit brought by journalist Okechukwu Nwafor were not served on the IGP, Justice Fatun Riman annulled the decision.

The judge had ruled that Baba’s continuing employment in his position after reaching the mandatory retirement age was illegal and unconstitutional, arguing that it was a blatant violation of the Police Act of 2020’s stipulations.

The former president Muhammadu Buhari was also required by the court to call a meeting of the Nigeria Police Council in order to name a new Inspector General of Police, who will hold the position for four years.

As you may remember, Buhari extended Baba’s term in office in January 2023 despite the fact that he turned 60 on March 1 of that year.

The IGP, who was not served with the originating Processes, went to court to ask for an order setting aside the judgment because he was unhappy with the outcome.

On the grounds that Justice Josephine Omotosho had decided the case’s issues and subject matter, the IGP also requested an order setting aside the ruling.

Baba had additionally contended that a party could ask the court to vacate a judgment if any of the components of fraud, non-service, or lack of court jurisdiction were present.

In addition, he asserted, citing section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, that every Nigerian citizen has a constitutionally protected right to a fair trial.

However, the plaintiff urged the court to reject the application on the grounds that it lacked validity and that Baba’s requests for relief were academic because the requirement for personal service was waived when the court gave him permission to serve all documents on the second defendant via alternative methods, negating the need for personal service.

The court is not bound by a judgment or decision made by a court of coordinating jurisdiction, he added, because it was not based on the law and did not also apply to the plaintiff in this case.

“It is obvious that the depositions of the bailiff affidavits of non-service did not prove or show that the Originating processes were served on the second Defendant/Applicant,” Justice Riman stated in his decision.

“Now that the second defendant’s/applicant’s problem regarding the non-service of the original summons has been settled, in my opinion, issue two is no longer relevant and this application has validity.

“Therefore, the judgment of this court given on the 19th day of May 2023 is set aside for failure to serve the second Defendant/Applicant with the originating proceedings. The judge declared, “This is the Court’s Decision.