Follow Us on Google
By Lukman Olabiyi
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), Abuja, has upheld the dismissal of a former Deputy Director of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Mr. Yisa Usman, in a judgment that reinforces the powers of public institutions to discipline employees where due process has been observed.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Osatohanmwen Obaseki-Osaghae on June 2, 2026, brings to an end a protracted legal dispute that pitched the former senior official against one of the Nigeria’s examination bodies over allegations of victimisation, whistleblowing, misconduct and denial of fair hearing.
In dismissing the suit, the court held that JAMB acted within the law, complied with its staff regulations, adhered to constitutional principles of fair hearing and successfully justified the reasons advanced for Usman’s dismissal.
The decision represents a major legal victory for JAMB and offers fresh judicial guidance on the delicate balance between whistleblower protection and institutional discipline within Nigeria’s public service.
The controversy traces its roots to a series of petitions and complaints authored by Usman against the management of JAMB and its Registrar, Professor Is-haq Oloyede.
The former deputy director had submitted petitions to anti-corruption agencies, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Federal Ministry of Education and other government bodies.
In the petitions, Usman alleged breaches of financial regulations, corruption, discriminatory practices and other forms of misconduct within the examination body.
However, according to evidence presented before the court, the allegations were investigated by relevant agencies and found to be unsubstantiated.
JAMB maintained throughout the proceedings that the investigations conducted by the anti-corruption agencies exonerated both the Registrar and the institution from wrongdoing.
The board argued that rather than being punished for whistleblowing, the claimant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings because of his own conduct and repeated acts that amounted to serious misconduct under the Public Service Rules and JAMB’s Staff Manual.
Usman’s employment with JAMB was terminated in July 2023 following recommendations by the Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee.
The committee had investigated allegations of misconduct against him and concluded that he had committed several breaches of the Public Service Rules.
Its recommendation was subsequently approved by the Minister of Education, who exercised supervisory authority over the board in the absence of a duly constituted Governing Board.
Following his dismissal, Usman approached the National Industrial Court in September 2023 seeking multiple reliefs.
He contended that his removal from service was unconstitutional, unlawful and motivated by retaliation for exposing alleged corruption within JAMB.
He also argued that the disciplinary process violated his right to fair hearing because certain individuals whom he had accused in his petitions were allegedly involved in the disciplinary proceedings against him.
The former deputy director urged the court to set aside the dismissal, declare it null and void, and order his reinstatement with full salaries, benefits and other entitlements.
A major issue before the court was whether Usman was denied fair hearing during the disciplinary process.
The claimant argued that the composition of the disciplinary committee was flawed and that he could not reasonably expect justice from a panel allegedly influenced by officials against whom he had lodged complaints.
However, the court found otherwise. Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that evidence before the court established that both the JAMB Registrar and the Director of Finance, two officials specifically accused by the claimant, recused themselves from the disciplinary proceedings.
The court noted that the disciplinary committee which eventually sat consisted mainly of directors of the board, including representatives from the Federal Ministry of Education.
According to the judgment, there was no evidence suggesting bias on the part of the remaining members of the committee.
The judge further observed that the claimant himself admitted during cross-examination that he was unaware that the Registrar and Director of Finance had withdrawn from the proceedings before he declined to attend the hearing.
The court therefore concluded that allegations of bias against the committee lacked evidential support.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that the composition of the committee complied substantially with the requirements of JAMB’s Staff Manual and had received ministerial approval.
The court also found no evidence that the federal character principle was violated in the constitution of the panel.
In addressing the issue of fair hearing, the court stressed that the constitutional requirement is satisfied once a person is given an opportunity to present his case.
The judgment showed that Usman was issued queries detailing allegations of misconduct and that he responded extensively in writing.
After considering his responses, JAMB invited him to appear before the Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee.
Rather than attend the hearing, however, the claimant rejected the invitation.
In a letter read before the committee, he stated that he would not appear before any panel constituted by the JAMB Registrar and demanded instead that a completely independent committee be set up by the Federal Government.
Other News
He proposed a panel comprising representatives of the EFCC, ICPC, Department of State Services, Nigeria Police Force, Bureau of Public Procurement, Federal Ministry of Finance, Public Complaints Commission, Fiscal Responsibility Commission and other agencies.
The disciplinary committee considered the letter but concluded that the claimant’s conditions were inconsistent with the Public Service Rules.
The committee further noted that his claim of ill health was unsupported by any medical report.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that JAMB was not obliged to accede to the claimant’s demands regarding the composition of the disciplinary panel.
The judge ruled that once the claimant was notified of the allegations, allowed to respond to the queries and invited to appear before the committee, the requirement of fair hearing had been met.
Citing several judicial authorities, including Imonikhe v Unity Bank Plc, the court reiterated that an employee who chooses not to take advantage of an opportunity to be heard cannot later complain of denial of fair hearing.
“Fair hearing is simply hear the other side,” the judge stated, adding that the claimant was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself.
Another major plank of the claimant’s case was that he was punished because of his whistleblowing activities.
The court, however, found no evidence linking his dismissal to the petitions he had written.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae observed that investigations conducted by anti-corruption agencies had cleared the Registrar and JAMB management of the allegations raised by the claimant.
The judge noted that Usman himself admitted in his evidence that the Registrar had been exonerated and given a clean bill of health by investigating authorities.
According to the court, the reasons stated in the dismissal letter related specifically to the claimant’s conduct, his responses to allegations of serious misconduct and his refusal to appear before the disciplinary committee.
The court held that those reasons were entirely separate from his whistleblowing activities.
Consequently, the argument that the dismissal was retaliation for exposing corruption was rejected.
Having examined the evidence, the court concluded that JAMB successfully established misconduct against the claimant.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae held that the claimant’s actions amounted to grave misconduct and insubordination.
The court observed that public institutions rely heavily on discipline and obedience to lawful directives in order to function effectively.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Sule v Nigerian Cotton Board, the judge emphasised that wilful disobedience of lawful authority remains one of the gravest forms of misconduct in any workplace.
The court quoted the apex court’s position that where an employee refuses to obey lawful orders, the normal consequence is summary dismissal.
According to the judgment, the claimant’s conduct demonstrated a refusal to submit to constituted authority and undermined the confidence reposed in him by his employer.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae stated that the evidence portrayed an official who acted as though he was accountable only to himself rather than to the institution he served.
“From the totality of the evidence adduced, I find that the misconduct of the claimant is grave and weighty. He wilfully disobeyed constituted authority,” the court held.
The judge added that such conduct eroded the trust essential for the continuation of an employment relationship.
The claimant also questioned the authority of the Minister of Education to approve his dismissal. The court rejected this contention.
Justice Obaseki-Osaghae noted that at the time the disciplinary recommendation was made, JAMB did not have a Governing Board in place.
Under Section 6 of the JAMB Establishment Act, the minister possesses supervisory powers to issue directives to the board regarding the exercise of its functions.
The court held that the minister’s approval of the dismissal was therefore valid and lawful.
The judge pointed out that the same ministerial authority had earlier approved the claimant’s promotion to the rank of Deputy Director, a promotion he accepted without objection.
Having accepted ministerial approval when it operated in his favour, the court held, the claimant could not validly challenge the same authority when it approved disciplinary action against him.
The court concluded that JAMB complied with its staff manual, observed due process and lawfully dismissed the former deputy director.
“I am satisfied that the defendant has justified the reasons that necessitated the dismissal of the claimant from its service. I hold that the dismissal of the claimant was lawful and in compliance with the staff manual,” Justice Obaseki-Osaghae ruled.
