Dr. Abdulwahab Oyedokun, the Director of Legal Services for the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), testified before the National Industrial Court on Monday, affirming that the dismissal of Mr. Yisa Usman, a deputy director at the board, was carried out in full compliance with due process.

Oyedokun made this statement while being cross-examined by Usman’s legal counsel, Mallam Mohammed Shuaibu, in a lawsuit filed against JAMB over what the claimant alleges to be an unlawful termination of employment.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Usman has instituted a 150 million lawsuit against JAMB under case number NICN/ABJ/266/2023, challenging the legality of his dismissal.

Usman has contended that the formation of the Board’s Directorate Staff Disciplinary Committee, which oversaw his termination, was completely irregular, illegal, and void because it failed to adhere to Article 3.5.4 of the Board’s Staff Manual and Conditions of Service.

The claimant argued that his right to a fair hearing was compromised due to the committee’s composition, which he claimed did not align with the relevant public service regulations.

He requested the court to rule that his dismissal was unlawful, illegal, and void on the grounds that JAMB terminated his employment without the Board's consideration of the committee’s findings.

Usman further alleged that the disciplinary committee was largely composed of the registrar and other directors who had personally benefited from the alleged infractions within JAMB that he had exposed.

As part of his suit, the claimant is seeking a court order for his reinstatement with all the entitlements, benefits, and allowances associated with his position. He is also demanding that all salaries and perks that would have accrued to him, if not for the dismissal, be paid in full.

During Monday’s proceedings, JAMB’s counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, led Oyedokun as the sole defence witness (DW) and guided him through his testimony.

As part of the defence, Owonikoko presented the witness statement on oath, dated March 11, 2024, as evidence before the court. Additionally, he sought to submit 33 documents attached to the statement for consideration.

While the claimant’s counsel, Shuaibu, did not oppose the submission of these documents, he reserved the right to challenge any aspects of them in his final written address.

Following this, the judge admitted the 33 documents as evidence, marking them as Exhibits D-1 to D-33, while affirming the claimant’s right to address any concerns in his final submission.

"The documents are accepted as evidence but remain subject to the claimant’s right to raise issues in the written address," the judge ruled.

The witness referred to the 33 certified documents, which detailed the timeline of JAMB’s investigation into Usman leading to his termination.

Among the documents presented in court were the disciplinary committee’s report, the Federal Ministry of Education’s approval of JAMB’s decision, and letters clearing JAMB officials of various allegations made by Usman.

Other documents included the Bureau of Public Procurement’s report, a copy of the query issued to Usman, his promotion letters, his response to the query, and records of his refusal to surrender his official password. Also submitted were the JAMB Directorate Disciplinary Committee’s final report, the Minister of Education’s correspondence, and a copy of the six-count charge filed against Usman by the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) in the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Further evidence included an ICPC invitation letter summoning Usman and two others, a letter from Usman to the registrar (dated June 6, 2022), an email from Usman to the registrar (March 2022), and an Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance report detailing an investigation linked to Usman’s allegations. Additional exhibits included a letter titled "Re: Invitation to Appear Before the Disciplinary Committee" from Usman, as well as email correspondences related to the case.

During cross-examination, the claimant’s lawyer, Shuaibu, questioned the witness about Chapter 9 of the JAMB Staff Manual, which stipulates that only JAMB directors should be part of the disciplinary committee for senior officials like a deputy director.

While the witness agreed that the committee’s composition should adhere to Federal Character Principles to ensure equity and fairness, he maintained that an official circular approved by the governing board superseded this provision.

Oyedokun firmly rejected the claimant’s position that only directors could preside over the disciplinary committee, arguing that JAMB’s management holds the authority to form such a committee.

He emphasized that JAMB’s governing board, as established by law, retains the power to discipline or dismiss employees as necessary.

The witness stated that Usman’s dismissal was based on violations of public service rules, clarifying that the decision was neither malicious nor unlawful.

He further pointed out that Usman was officially dismissed on July 3, 2023, whereas the criminal case against him by the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) was filed much later, on January 16, 2024.

“I put it to you that the disciplinary committee’s formation was irregular and not in accordance with established procedures,” Shuaibu argued during the cross-examination.

“The committee was properly constituted,” Oyedokun countered.

When asked if the allegations against Usman were ever referred to his head of department, the witness confirmed that they were.

Shuaibu then challenged the witness, stating that under Public Service Rules, the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) is the sole authority with the power to discipline or dismiss public servants.

Oyedokun responded that this rule applies only to employees in core government ministries, explaining that JAMB, as a parastatal, operates under its own established Act.

“The ministry that approved the claimant’s dismissal had no authority to do so,” Shuaibu argued.

“That is incorrect, my lord,” Oyedokun replied.

“The disciplinary committee’s composition was flawed because it did not follow the proper protocol,” Shuaibu insisted.

“The committee was constituted appropriately, my lord,” the witness reiterated.

Shuaibu also contended that the two representatives from the Federal Ministry of Education on the committee should not have been part of the panel.

In response, Oyedokun maintained that their presence was justified, as they were representatives of JAMB’s supervising ministry.

The witness further noted that to ensure fairness, JAMB’s registrar, the Director of Finance and Account, and Mabel Agbebaku had recused themselves from the disciplinary committee, as Usman had previously lodged petitions against them.

Following the witness’s testimony, Owonikoko (JAMB’s counsel) announced the closure of the defence’s case.

Justice Obaseki-Osaghae subsequently adjourned proceedings to May 28, 2025, when the parties will present their final written addresses.