Ofeh Ikpor, who had been fired from his position as an officer with the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), has been given permission to return to work by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

In 2013, Mr. Ikpor, who had served as a marshal for the corps, was fired in an improper manner.

The job termination was overturned by the judge Oluwakayode Arowosegbe of the Abakaliki division of the court when he handed down his decision in the dispute that emerged as a result of Mr. Ikpor's being fired from his position.

The court ordered the administration of the FRSC to pay Mr. Ofeh his back salary, starting in 2013, at the rate on which he was being paid before his appointment was terminated and continuing up to the present day. Mr. Ikpor said that his job was terminated out of malice over suspected wrongdoing, without allowing him a fair hearing, as stated in a summary of the verdict that was published on the website of the court.

He claimed that the FRSC rules, which were in effect in 2005, were broken by his sack.

The claimant said that the Board of Inquiry (BOI) that was established to investigate his alleged misbehaviour cleared him of any wrongdoing.

However, another board of inquiry was formed in his absence and without compliance with rules. This caused the secretary of the board to withdraw endorsement, and the board ultimately recommended that he be fired from his position.

In addition to this, Mr. Arowosegbe directed the corps to pay the claimant N5 million as general damages for defamation and N1 million as the cost of action within the next month.

However, the court did not grant Mr. Ikpor's request for a promotion. The court came to the conclusion that Mr. Ikpor was unable to provide sufficient evidence to justify his elevation.

Read Also : What the Federal Road Safety Commission is doing to reduce the number of car accidents in Anambra – Official

The judge's decision, however, was based on the grounds that "... the instrument of termination of statutory employment fails to give reason for the termination, being contravention of Article 4 of the ILO C158, a statutory contravention of a mandatory procedure of termination, the termination becomes null and void and, is liable to be set aside in employment clothed with statutory flavours." This was the main issue that was brought up in the lawsuit.

The court came to the conclusion that "the claimant has effectively demonstrated his case...and the defendant has accepted this, but justified it so, compounding the defamation." [Claimant]

According to the decision made by Mr. Arowosegbe, the law requires employers to strictly adhere to disciplinary processes in employment that are flavoured with statutory flavours, and any departure from these procedures leads to the invalidation of such disciplinary measures.
However, in order to defend themselves, the corps Marshal of the FRSC said before the judge that Mr. Ikpor was not cleared of any wrongdoing by the board.

The corps said that there was neither another board nor did it allow certain exhibits that had been left out at a prior date. In addition, the corps denied putting up a second board of inquiry.

Additionally, it was maintained that the fact that a member of the disciplinary board did not sign the report was a mistake that had no bearing on the legitimacy of the document.

The corps said that the claimant was provided with a fair hearing and that they adhered to all of the protocols during the trial. However, the claimant did not file an appeal against the verdict within the allotted amount of time. However, in order to defend themselves, the corps Marshal of the FRSC said before the court that Mr. Ikpor was not cleared of any wrongdoing by the board.

The corps said that there was neither another board nor did it allow certain exhibits that had been left out at a prior date. In addition, the corps denied putting up a second board of inquiry.

Additionally, it was maintained that the fact that a member of the disciplinary board did not sign the report was a mistake that had no bearing on the legitimacy of the document.

The corps said that the claimant was provided with a fair hearing and that they adhered to all of the protocols during the trial. However, the claimant did not file an appeal against the verdict within the allotted amount of time.