Court Declines Jurisdiction, Refuses To Sack NDDC’s Committee

A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined jurisdiction over a suit seeking the sack of the Interim Management Committee (IMC) appointed for the Niger-Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment on Monday, held that the plaintiffs were without the requisite locus standi (the right to bring an action in court) to file the suit, a development that robbed his court of the jurisdiction to look into their claims.

Justice Ekwo struck out the suit.

The judgment was on a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/690/2020 filed by Akharame Izedome Lucky, Adward Brisibe, Youths Arise for Undiluted Leadership and Development Initiative and Riverrun Development Initiative.

Listed as defendants were the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF), the Minister of NDDC, Prof. Kemebradikumo Pondei, Dr. Cairo Ojougboh, Mrs. Caroline Nagbo and Cecilia Bukola Akintomide.

Justice Ekwo held that the two groups among the plaintiffs lacked the power, by virtue of their registration status, to file such suits challenging the action of government agencies.

As it relates to the two natural persons among the plaintiffs, Justice Ekwo held that they do not fall among those described as stakeholders in Section 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act, who are clothed with the locus standi to query the actions and decisions taken in relation to the management of the NDDC.

“I do not see any lacuna in the NDDC Act that will enable any person not mentioned in Section 2(1)(b) thereof to claim to be acting in the interest of either any person mentioned in the provision or not so mentioned.

Enter All Nooks, Crannies Of Niger Delta, Ascertain Utilization Of NDDC Funds Over The Years, Akpabio To Auditors

“In addition to this, I do not see the status given the persons in Section 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act is such that can be delegated to any other person or hijacked by any other person.”

“Let me put it more specifically for the purpose of clarity. It is my opinion that the effect of the provisions of S. 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act is that there can be no action by proxy for them. They are the mentioned stakeholders of the law.

“Therefore, if the persons mentioned in Section 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act refuse, neglect or fail to act where there is allegation of infractions of the provisions of the Act, it means they do not consider the alleged act as infraction.

“If there is any breach or infraction of the provisions of the NDDC Act, it is the stakeholders or any of them specifically mentioned in Section 2(1) thereof that is clothed with the locus standi to take an action.

“To give effect to the intention of the legislature on locus standi of the stakeholders mentioned in S. 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act, it can be seen that each of them are corporate persons with inherent power to sue and be sued.

“I find that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, not being persons mentioned in Section 2(1)(b) of the NDDC Act, cannot institute an action in court on any matter concerning or pertaining to the appointment of managing director, executive directors and members of the management board of the NDDC.

“In other words, they lack the locus standi to institute this suit. They should rather hold those who have the locus standi to act, but have not done so, responsible.

“0n the whole, I resolve the issue of locus standi against the plaintiffs and in favour of the first defendant and by this resolution, the issue of locus slandi respectively raised by the second and third to eighth defendants, is by extension resolved in their favour.

“Now, where a plaintiff has been adjudged to lack locus standi, it does not matter what other issues have been raised for determination. Those issues have been overtaken by event. Lack of locus standi ordinarily means the plaintiff has no legal right or authority to cross the threshold of the court for the purpose of litigation.

“Once the court finds that a plaintiff lacks locus standi, then the court lacks jurisdiction to consider or decide any other issue in the suit and this is the case here

“The consequence of the lack of locus standi is dire and the courts have been unwavering in making pronouncements on it. It is the law that the claims must be struck out and I am bound to follow the law. I therefore make an order striking out this action for lack of standi of the plaintiffs,” Justice Ekwo said.